If the Ten Commandments say that bearing false witness and killing are sinful, then starting a war based on false pretenses (non-existent WMD) must be a very great sin indeed. Pope John Paul II warned the Bush administration not to invade Iraq. Other prominent religious officials were against it also. But most Americans only pay attention to the pope and other religious figures when they say something agreeable.

Far too many of America's religious leaders were uncritical boosters of the war. Oddly enough, the same ones who want the Ten Commandments posted in public buildings are the ones who are the most belligerent and least willing to admit America might have done anything wrong. I believe they've confused their loyalty to the USA with their faith in God. If those were the same thing, then why would we need God?

zionist feminazi? awww... how nice.

Great, now the zionist feminazis are weighing in...

Demetri's article should be spread all over this country. We, as a nation, seem unable to take a good look at ourselves in the interest of doing unto others as we would want others to do unto us. And we do love power, along with our greed and sloth.
Philosophers and psychologists, scientists, are saying that there is a change in consciousness happening. The current such change that I have observed in my 84 years is that of our shift to the side of corruption and lethargy, arrogance, everything Demetri said and maybe more. A rabbi suggested that we instigate a day of Atonement and ask for forgiveness for our sins and begin the process of restitution and change. Ha! Fat Chance
We gave a lot of time and print space to apologizing to the blacks for having kept them slaves. But have you heard about what is going on in Jena, Louisana. We get worse, not better. I ask myself what will happen; I probably am too old to see the outcome of all this. And that's probably just as well.

First of all I want to say that it makes me happy to read all of this intelligent discourse. It goes to show that there is indeed "questioning of imperial notions and goals" and to think otherwise is to underestimate us.

So, this doesn't have anything to do with the Rome thing, I just have to say that yes, they DEFINITELY hate us because we are free, not just because of our meddlesome ways. I cannot believe that anyone would think otherwise.

Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a façade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

So many people believe that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. If this is the case, what does the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria--which happened in the last few decades--or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the ethnic cleansing in Sudan, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

We blame ourselves for the Islamist rage, in the hope that our admission of guilt will pacify our enemies. What about taking a stand?

THomas Paine,

It is intresting you chose the author of the famous pamphlet "common Sense" as a screen name, because the way you deny common sense and pretend that the intentions and moral culpability of an IDF pilot and Osama Bin Laden are exactly the same.

I hate getting into these discussions with leftists, who pretend not to know the difference between those who target a terrorist who hides in an apartment building, and a terrorist who deliberately targets a bus full of civilians with no other purpose except to kill, wound, and terrorize the civilian population. Either you are deliberately pretending not to know right from wrong, or you really are that dumb, but here are some important differences based on the Israel and US WW 2 examples you gave.

1. Muslim terrorists target a bus full of civilians and kill them. The civilians deaths are not accidental, incidental, or collateral, they are intended. For Islamic terrorists killing civilians is not a regretable by product to "resisting the occupier". Killing civilians precisely the point. (stop me if I am going to fast here)

2. An Israeli F-16 that knows a terrorist is in an apartment building, has 2 choices:

A. Dont bomb it and wait for that terrorist to kill Israeli innocents.

B. Bomb and kill the terrorist, but in the action accidentally kill the terrorist.

In WW II the allies destroyed the German Luftwaffe mostly on the ground by bombing key infrastructure that unfortunately was located in cities.

NOW FOR OUR END OF CHAPTER REVIEW. PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW HONESTLY.

1. If Israel and the US's moral ethos called for killing innocent civilians, then why does Hamas hide behind innocent civilians? Could it be that even the terrorists acknowledge what you refuse to, that America and Israel would rather bomb military targets instead of terrorizing civilians?

2. Who is more likely to be seen on TV sawing an innocent civilians head off from the neck?

A. US
B. Israel
C. Hamas, Al Quaeda, Fatah, etc.?

3. Whose tactics include the intentional targeting of innocents such that maximizing the civilian body count is the point of the attack, instead of merely an unfortunate by product of trying to kill an enemy who uses his own neighbors as human shields?

A. US
B. Israel
C. Hamas, Al Quaeda, Fatah, etc.

LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES AND TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE REAL CAUSE OF ALL THIS HAVOC IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND IN THE WHOLE WORLD.IT'S THE CREATION OF THE ILLEGAL STATE OF ISRAEL ON THE RUINS OF PALESTINE.THIS IS THE STEM CELL THAT HAS BEEN BREEDING ALL CHAOS AND TERROR WORLDWIDE.UNLESS THIS ISSUE IS HANDLED ADEQUATELY AND ALL PALESTINIAN REFUGEES RETURN HOME,WE WILL BE FOOLING OURSELVES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT INVISIBLE GHOSTS THAT WE CALL TERRORISTS

Speed123,

The concern is that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons program. Having said that, the dispute can and should be resolved diplomatically. However, to achieve a breakthrough, the U.S. and Iran will both have to make some concessions e.g., the U.S. would bar the threat of "regime change" and offer a path for normalization in exchange for Iran's agreeing to limit itself to a peaceful nuclear program subject to a rigorous verification regime. Reciprocity will be key to diplomatic success. "Something for nothing" will likely lead to diplomatic failure.

The neoconservatives e.g., John Bolton, believe diplomacy has already failed. In reality, the kind of direct bilateral talks that will be needed have not yet been undertaken. Hence, diplomacy hasn't even been given a reasonable chance just yet.

Funny how the neo cons and the "liberal" media are even now pushing for regime change and preemptive war with Iran (which poses no threat to us)....

Also funny that none of the candidate promise to refuse a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran (including Hillary, Obama and Rudy McRomney) EXCEPT Ron Paul.

Congress with mediate the foreign policy of Ron Paul once he wins...and since there is no major foreign threats out there, it is a good time to clean house, reduce bases, balance our budget, and restore the constitutional rights eroded under Bush and the neo cons.

We are a REPUBLIC not an EMPIRE....google Ron Paul

Liberals are the dumbest people on Earth. Its no surprise why terrorists attacked NYC, a liberal city. They knew that they wouldn't fight back. Instead they would just beg for more.

ANNO:

yes they hate us because we are free. look at what islam demands. we are free to ignore that.

Speed123,

In the run-up to World War II, the U.S. had embraced isolationism. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. wrote:

"Isolationism set the terms of foreign policy debate. Franklin D. Roosevelt had no illusions about the threats to peace posed by Nazi Germany and imperial Japan... [H]e could not, for all his popularity control an isolationist Congress when it came to foreign policy. Congress...passed rigid neutrality legislation that, by denying the president authority to discriminate between aggressor and victim, nullified any American role in restraining aggression. In sum, it put American foreign policy in a straitjacket during the critical years before World War II."

Today, the U.S. suffers from reduced worldwide support on account of the excesses of the Neoconservatism. The Neoconservatives embraced unilateralism and made it a mission of the U.S. military to pursue idealistic ends. Congressman Paul, rather than taking a more restrained approach, seeks to take the opposite extreme in promoting neo-isolationism.

Should the U.S. dictate the political outcomes of all nations?

Absolutely not. However, it should be prepared to intervene via diplomacy, assistance, and only, if necessary, militarily to safeguard its critical overseas interests. In my opinion, recent military interventions that were justified were those to liberate Kuwait (ally and access to oil) and to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan (government sheltering Al Qaeda who attacked the U.S.). Some recent military interventions that fell short included those that took place in Haiti (no major U.S. interests were involved) and, most recently, Iraq (no imminent threat was posed). It should also work through its partnership with NATO to help maintain stability in Europe. It should not pursue a policy of "regime change" in order to promote democracy. Democracy is a function of economic, political, and legal institutions. Therefore, "regime change" won't achieve it.

PS - Don,

Do you think we should dictate the political outcomes for all foreign nations?

Should we have policies everywhere that tip the scales to favor our interests? i.e. "the interests of humanity" ha!

Our federal government cannot even rebuild our historic New Orleans after a major storm.....how do you think that they will be able to effectively nation build and direct the affairs of the world competently??

You are not a conservative, are you?

It is time to tame the corrupt and incompetent federal government.

Time to restore the constitution and the powers given to the states and people.

Time to google Ron Paul!

Don,

Can you think of a time where we have been more isolated that we are now??? And how many military bases do we currently have around the world???

Come on, I am no historian; however, American foreign policy was NOT isolationist between wars.

The rise of national socialism was the result of Versailles, the economic depression AND as a reactionary force against the advent of the radical Bolshevik revolution in Russia.

Blaming American "isolationism" is simply a scare tactic used by those who wish us to support regimes or particular religious groups around the world.

War does not end war, it promotes it.

Ron Paul promotes trade and peace with all nations - this is a policy that ends wars as opposed to starting them without just cause.

Jefferson: "peace, trade and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with NONE!

Empires, like all human institutions and superstructures, exist only within the cloud of tacitly agreed upon assumptions and conditional truths. We, as citizens of the United States, accept the legitimacy of our government and thus hold its existence and power as a self-evident truth. In fact, very few people in this country could even conceive of challenging the authority and legitimacy of our domestic political and economic order, in any practical sense that is. Nations that rule empires, such as the United States and its institutions, face a greater challenge than local governments in that they have a much more difficult time justifying their positions as legitimate sources of power and order, primarily because of their finite political reach. In order for empires to survive they must be able to maintain the support of their clients and marginalize the voices of their challengers so as to keep faith in the system intact. Once members of the international order, specifically nations since they are still the most dominant and legitimate form of societal organization, begin to doubt either the legitimacy of the empire or its sustainability, the edifice of presupposed expectations and truths regarding the existential viability of the empire begin to crumble.
So the question then is not whether or not America is an empire but whether or not the nations and institutions whose support for American empire is crucial to its very existence, still believe in its legitimacy and sustainability. There is no question that the current international and financial order is dominated by American institutions and held together by the glue of deference to American primacy. Thus, it would be fair to say that American empire is certainly a reality. That being said however, it would also be fair to say that confidence in the sustainability of American empire is quickly eroding. Other nations, international institutions, and private investors are beginning to more openly question the sustainability of American empire, and even America itself is beginning to willingly loosen its grips on certain parts of its empire in the expectation that it will be unable to manage its collective security and order in the near future (we see this willingness to move towards a more multi-polar world in current American policy towards Asia). This breaks with the current administration’s actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and its clear unilateral attempts at strengthening its imperial grip on the Middle East and central Asia. This sort of schizophrenic foreign policy is certainly alarming and it suggests that there is still no clear consensus among policy elites both within this country and in others about what the future of our world’s political structure should and ultimately will look like. This growing loss of confidence by members of the imperial community is justified. Although America’s military power, the traditional source of imperial legitimacy, is far greater than that of any other member of the international community, its application no longer holds the same persuasive value that it did just 15 years ago. All of this country’s military might cannot solve the instability that it has created in Iraq, and this has become plainly obvious to both its clients and its challengers. In addition, America has become completely dependent upon the maintenance of the empire itself in order to sustain the financial viability of its economy and thus the continued tacit support for its policies by its own body politic – the ultimate source of imperial legitimacy within a democratic society. The current petrodollar regime and the long-time willingness of emerging Asian countries to invest in American assets and to purchase American bonds is being challenged. Without the continued willingness of imperial clients to support the dollar indefinitely, the United States, and much of the world, would suffer an economic catastrophe the likes of which we may have never seen before.
With the exception of states that are currently marginalized and/or punished within the framework of our current imperial order – Iran, North Korea, and to a lesser degree Russia to name a few – the remaining members potentially have much to lose from American withdrawal before a legitimate replacement for the current international regime (a.k.a. American empire and all of its institutions) is established. Therefore, it is imperative that the next American administration moves quickly towards re-establishing trust in American leadership, for the time being, and work together with other members of the international community to lay the groundwork for what is sure to be a multi-polar 21st century. However, even an administration that re-establishes trust and cooperation within the current international system will face significant challenges that could ultimately lead to catastrophic armed conflict in the years to come – mainly the combined challenges of dwindling carbon-based energy supplies and global climate change, and the emergence of non-state actors capable of eroding the very confidence of the nation state itself as a legitimate provider of security and economic opportunity for society. Ultimately, I do not believe that any of these problems can be solved unless the body politic of the United States awakens from its slumber and demands that a serious political dialogue be initiated within this country to address these urgent and vital issues. American politicians are far too short sighted to act beyond their own self-interests, and if we as a people do not rise up and use the democratic institutions of government to demand real and immediate change in the fundamental and existential challenges that face our world today, we may not have much of a world to look forward to.

The fact that the Cold War is over and Iran does not currently possess nuclear weapons does not mean that the U.S. should swing to the neo-isolationism espoused by Congressman Paul. History suggests that such a development could have tragic results.

Prior to World War II, U.S. isolationism provided no security or safety. It only created a global power vacuum in which Nazi Germany was able to alter the balance of power in its favor. Today, with the outcome of that isolationist period known from the annals of history, here is no good reason to roll the dice and return to the kind of policy that proved so disastrous in the past.

youre an idiot and I am sure you believe that they "hate us because we are free"

time to reevaluate our foreign policy and adjust commitments so that they are beneficial to Americans as opposed to dictators and special interests lobbies such as AIPAC.

The cold war is over! Iran etc are third world countries with no air force, nukes or navy!

Time to think!

Vote Ron Paul 2008

Time for a positive post and gives humanity hope:

Ron Paul 2008!

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

War on terror is like war on ghosts that we can neither see nor feel around. How can anybody win a war against such an enemy who can appear only when he decides to strike,who can be near you all the time without knowing it,who can be with you in the street,on the train,on the bus,on the flight,even near your house,school or garden.Let's be honest about it. This is not a conventional war that we used to know.Even with the most powerful neuclear weapons,we simply cannot win such a war.However,this doesn't mean that we have to give up or surrender to the enemy.We can simply eradicate all terrorists and terrorism by eliminating the major cause behind it.The illegal creation of Israel on the ruins of Palestine is the stem cell that has been breeding all chaos and trerror in the Middle East and in the whole world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out of their country to be replaced by jews from Europe,Ethiopia,Russia,Poland etc.
Unless the Palestinian issue is settled in a fair way to all concerned parties and unless all Palestinian refugees return home under UN resolutions, we will continue to fight ghosts for many years to come.

Frank Colins is a one-trick hate pony.

Take back the country from the think tanks, elite and corporate interests...................

Google Ron Paul 2008

Collins, very good post and well documented. Congratulations.
(Except by the reference to the book "I am OK, you are OK". Transactional analysis and emotional literacy would do a lot for most of us and our misunderstandings)

Wat (if you're still reading), I had to go to Google to find this out, but apparently, Murphy is Cullen Murphy, author of the recently published "Are We Rome?: the fall of an empire and the fate of America".

Kudos to Demetri and to you, and to all the other intelligent, aware people pointing out the truths Andoni is speaking that don't fit into our national "America Can Do Nothing Evil, Islamobrownfolks Can Do Nothing Else" narrative.

I have known America and Americans for a long time, I have studied with them, I have travelled and had fun with them, I have worked for and with them, etc.
I can never say "Americans" and encompass in the term what I would call the two America´s that I know: one, a cultured and responsible people, the other, an unthinking biggoted mass of consumers. Unfortunately, the US government has been capable of ignoring the first group and supported by the second group, which it - itself leads, has acted contrary to the original ideals of their founding members.
And its present behaviour is nothing new, US of A, founded on the principles of people searching for freedom, was fed and enlarged by people searching to grab land and later by people searching for the American Dream: A Golden Cadillac. Young man go West, lots of land to grab, when finished, grab Mexico´s land, Hawaii, Phillipines, Panamá,Cuba (...Wait, too many people there, they will become citizens and have rights, don't grab the land, just control it!), later it gets in the European war of 1914 and catches the control of the Middle East oil.
Not amazingly, to the cheers of the unthinking group, who only rise to oppose the war when the number of American casualties gets to be significant in their cities and towns, never mind when the number of victims on the other side is a hundred times larger, they are not americans.

There are at least two Americas in the population of the USA today. The empire America and the working America.

The state of American people as a whole can be understood by the interplay of those two entity, the Empire part is providing essential material and incentives for the working part to do its job.

First it's money. Money or the USD is the incentive for most Americans to work, pay the bills for food, oil, housing, education and health care. Basic things.

When the value of the USD is in decline, the empire part has to invade another big oil reserve: Iraq in more aggressive manner than the silent invasion of Saudi Arabia. As to food it's abandon in America, housing is not a big matter because that relies only on low-paid jobs, can be done by out-of-the-system immigrant from Mexico or others that may not be entitled to health care or good education.

You can see the move of the administration as attempt to mediate the two Americas so as the outcome maybe acceptable to most of Americans.

It would be more problematic when the Empire part of American no longer can convince the working part to work because of the obvious low value of the USD. As of now, the USD is a global value own by most foreign banks as foreign exchange reserves, thus the question here is as always : Do you believe in America Empire or not ?

If the foreign creditors still willing to accept the promises of American Empire, then, yes, the American Empire will continue to expand. But when those creditors start to see the sign of a weaken empire and see a chance to assert themselves, then America will suffer heavily.

The recent assertion of Russia could be seen as a sign of such assertiveness. But it remains to be seen how China, Japan, EU which are the biggest financial players would react.

It's highly probable that all of them would still accept the role of America as the needed cop in town.

LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES AND TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE REAL CAUSE OF ALL THIS HAVOC IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND IN THE WHOLE WORLD.IT'S THE CREATION OF THE ILLEGAL STATE OF ISRAEL ON THE RUINS OF PALESTINE.THIS IS THE STEM CELL THAT HAS BEEM BREEDING ALL CHAOS AND TERROR WORLDWIDE.UNLESS THIS ISSUE IS HANDLED ADEQUATELY AND ALL PALESTINIAN REFUGEES RETURN HOME,WE WILL BE FOOLING OURSELVES AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT INVISIBLE GHOSTS THAT WE CALL TERRORISTS.

Don,

Further to Silence Dogwood's post, the Brits at least had the decency to tell part of the truth about Usama Bin Laden. The American media have been completely silent of the role our beloved government agencies and the military have had in ensuring Usama's rise to stardom.

It was an unholy pact between the US (supply of arms & training), the Saudis (supply the money) & the Pakistanis (supply the bases to house the Mujahideens). The ultimate con was that the Afghans were told that the 'godless commies' were a threat to Islam and the ME. What most Americans really don't understand is that the Saudis added one very important demand to their signing on. Their brand of Islam (Wahabism) would be taught to the Mujahideen and the displaced refugees from Afghanistan.

Its very easy to sit in the convenience of nice, comfortable American homes and talk. Think of the remote Hindu Kush mountain ranges, the bleak, harsh winters, the blistering summers. Think of spending 6+ years fighting the Soviets, where every single day could be your last. Think of praying and thinking Wahabi style everyday. It goes a long way in creating people with very bleak, hardened souls. The Mujahideen became a pretty unforgiving people and very, very hard to kill.

After the Soviets withdrew, the Americans walked away leaving the Pakistanis, the Mujahideen & Saudis to do as they pleased. The results were appalling and of course, since it did not directly affect American economic interests, they simply ignored it.

The ISI ensured that the opium warlords were in charge of Afghanistan. The Pakistani military generals with the billions of USD siphoned off the generous Saudi 'aid' setup huge processing centers along the Pak-Afghan border; processing Afghan opium into grade A heroin which they shipped to Europe and America. Everyone became filthy, stinking rich. Life was good.

Ol' Usama went back to Saudi Arabia and was welcomed as a hero. Having switched to a purely religious way of life, looking around, he saw that the rulers of the country, who were the caretakers of the Kaaba and where the official religion was strict Wahabism, were actually doing everything which they were not supposed to be doing. Plus, they had their good buddies, the Americans, walking around like they owned the land.

He tried to bring in change and started by discussing with the local elders, then started preaching in the mosques. For his troubles, he was targeted by the Saudis & the Americans; to be terminated with extreme prejudice. He obviously had learnt well the lessons the US Special Forces taught him. He survived and took his fight forward. In his opinion and the opinion of at least a few billion people in this world, the Saudi monarchy was in power solely because of America's support. Duh! FDR guaranteed it and it has been a pretty enduring guarantee. It isn't called ARAMCO for nothing. Hence, his strike at America.

He hoped that most of the hijackers being Saudis, would make the American government strike out at the Saudi monarchy and the Saudi people would be freed. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Blood is thicker than water, and oil is definitely thicker than both. :-)

As a side tragedy to the monumental screw up by the Americans in Pakistan, the ISI now had an army of battle hardened, expert killers to utilize as they saw fit. Net result, 75K+ Kashmiris are dead and 2+ million Kashmiris have become refugees in their own country. The Indians are more than capable of taking out the training camps of the terrorists. No prizes for guessing who has stopped them these past 18 years; The American government. We need the Pakis to produce the nut cases (result of the Wahabi madrassas created with Saudi aid) who we can parade before our gullible public as the reason to start the War on Terror.

The economic benefits of a war are profound. Check the facts on the billions the military contractors have made since 9/11. Our economy is booming.

I think we really need to create a strategy that will marginalize Usama and future Usamas. Invading Iraq for their oil, killing 100K+ innocent Iraqi civilians and blithely referring to them as 'collateral damage' is not conducive. We need to change our thinking.

Lamis Andoni,

You represent a channel which is owned by a clan-based monarchy. And you have the temerity preaching America about values???

Listen, you guys in Qatar cannot even dream of reaching the level of sophistication which existed in ancient Rome. Unlike Qatar, Rome was actually a republic at some point.

There may be many things wrong with today's America. But you, Lamis Andoni, and those illiterate, polygamist, lazy sheikhs who pay you to write this drivel, are in no position to judge!

Andrew, I have a few questions for you:

1. You claim that the deaths of Palestinian civilians via F16s are "accidental". If an F16 drops a bomb on an apartment building and kills numerous civilians, or if artillery shells are fired at a refugee camp with shells designed to detonate above ground and spray shrapnel, and so forth, and so on, are you saying that nobody in the military carrying out the shelling has any inkling that innocents will be killed?

2. You claim, and I agree, that the deliberate targeting of civilians as a matter of policy is wrong, calling it "dark ages-like behavior". What, then, would you call the bombing by the Allies in WWII of Dresden, along with every major (and many minor) Japanese city? What would you call Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Were those actions, all of which invloved the deliberate, systemic targeting of civilians, done in the dark ages, Andrew?

Here's another bit of history for you, Andrew: the King David hotel in Jerusalem was blown up in 1946 by the Irgun. There were 91 people killed. All were civilians. You can read about it at wikipedia.

This attack was ordered by Menachen Begin. You might remember him if you know a bit of history, Andrew: he went on to become Israel's Prime Minister from 1977-1983.

Was this done in the dark ages, Andrew?

The fact is that in this fight, both sides have lots of deliberately drawn civilian blood on their hands.

The other fact is that you live in a country that has deliberately caused the death of far more civilians than the terrorists being discussed here. Which certainly in no way justifies, condones, or forgives their actions, but does bring to mind the glass houses/stones thing.

the soviet union no longer exists....time to update to reality....

There wasn't a lot of complaining about the "American Empire" when the Soviet Union was swallowing her neighbors.

I am currently reading the book Founding Brothers by Joseph j. Ellis.

During the 1790’s and 1800’s there was a continuous debate between the Federalists (big federal government – John Adams) and the Republicans (small federal government – Thomas Jefferson). They were constantly debating and it was healthy for the country.

The problem now is that both parties are now both big federal government Federalists. Republicans sometimes pretend to be small government but when they get in office they quick switch back to big government.

Ron Paul truly is a small federal government Republican. Ron Paul would provide balance against all the current Federalists.

Dan,

I think this would be a good time to do a general purging of our foreign policy which is based on outdated cold war policies and situations that are no longer applicable and arguably harmful. And they are certainly outrageously expensive.

For example there is no longer a need for US troops in South Korea or Europe. So much of our foreign policy is just on autopilot from 50 years ago.

A vigorous and healthy debate of all these alphabet soup organizations and agencies is actual what we need at this stage. Most politicians are too much cowards to offend any agency or organization. Ron Paul has the courage to start the debate.

Anything that proves essential will be blocked by congress or reinstate with the new administration after Ron Paul’s presidency. But I think we will find that we are better for having swept out the old cob webs.

OK - I agree with questioning all aspects of a candidate; however, calling him a non-isolationist is not accurate....

Withdrawl from managed trade pacts such as NAFTA is a policy that would encourage free trade not dampen it....same for WTO.

There is a difference between managed trade and free trade and Ron Paul is for the latter with all nations.

Reevaluation of our position in the world does not mean withdrawl and a president has to work with the legislature in any such effort.

Speed123,

If Ron Paul were only opposed to preemptive war, which would be at odds with the traditional U.S. posture, that would be one thing. He favors withdrawal from NATO, WTO, NAFTA. He seeks an end to U.S. protection of South Korea and opposes security alliances in general. He favors the closure of overseas bases. He calls for the elimination of foreign aid. That is a neo-isolationist stance no matter how one tries to package it.

Clearly, Ron Paul has the freedom to espouse such positions as he does. However, that freedom does not mean his positions are immune from question, debate or discussion. Indeed, he is a champion of free speech.

Finally, I agree that the neoconservative approach to foreign policy has been a failure. However, rather than calling for a shift in the opposite direction to neo-isolationism, I believe a return to the pragmatic Realism that defined the foreign policy of Presidents Truman through Reagan would be far better.

Don, stop slandering Ron Paul. Taking a stand against PREEMPTIVE war is not isolationism and neither is true free trade with ALL nations (not just the ones the Neo Cons support)

PS -check out meetup.com and the presidential grass root organizers:

Ron Paul: 18,500 volunteers

Obama: 3,000
Hiliary: 700
Mccain:0
Rudy: 0
McRomney: 0

30 million from corporations and foreign lobbies cant by you 18,000 people on the pavement every week.

This is the revolution!

This author needs a one way ticket to Gitmo. She is obviously on the side of our enemies who are at war with us. How come the Washington Post even allows her to post this seditious material on their website I don't even know. I do know that anyone who talks bad about MY country oughta get the heck out. We don't want you!

Don,

It was our direct funding and training of mujahedeen that led to al-Qaeda and thus 9/11.

Former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons Robin Cook spoke of al-Qaeda as an unintentional product of Western interests:

“Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western security agencies. Throughout the 80s, he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organization would turn its attention to the west.”

The point of all this is that we spend so much of our resources on these outrageous machiavellian plots that more often than not backfire on us. At least since the corrupting of our foreign policy by the Military Industrial Complex since the 1950’s.

I do agree that it was probably useful for us to have a strong military during most of the past 70 years. I just think we really need to tone things down. In fact, we really don’t have much choice at this stage. America is now in major debt and on the verge of bankruptcy with a real threat of sudden collapse of the dollar due to over printing of money to pay for the Iraq war and big government spending from the neo-cons.

Just seems to me that for at least the next four years we would do well to have a real fiscal conservative like Ron Paul to help get our government back into a proper balance. Realistically he wont get all the changes he wants. But having someone to say ‘No’ to the congress’ overspending for a few years would be healthy for our country. Just to help reach a more healthy balance.

Please go get The Pentagon's New Map. Crucial to read that book to understand the US strategy/goals as seen by the powers that be in the pentagon and the white house.
The movie Control Room shoulld help dispel anti-al jazeera fearmongering.
Nemesis is the bes statement of the ron Paul case.

Read these first. Then have at it. Debate is good but simply arguing is simply divisive. Let's look at both sides and try to see the other's perspective. Then a calm debate could be productive.

Silence Dogwood,

There is no certainty that the neo-isolationism espoused by Congressman Ron Paul would have prevented the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although Osama Bin Laden's "grievances" include what had been a U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, they also go well beyond "blowback." In his "letter to the American people," he has complained that the U.S. political system by making the Constitution its source of authority runs counter to religion. He has asserted that American culture is corrupt. He has declared that America must ultimately convert to Islam albeit his radical interpretation.

Prior to World War II, the U.S. employed exactly the kind of isolationism that Mr. Paul advocates. It did not keep America from being attacked. It did keep America from "balancing" rising Nazi power e.g., by backing Czechoslovakia or entering into an alliance with France and Britain, and that failure might well have helped fuel the Nazis' appetite for aggression.

Given the historical experience with isolationism, the U.S. would be embarking on a truly hazardous course if it turned to Ron Paul's neo-isolationism.

Interesting article

Somebody said once that "History doens't repeat itself but it rymes nicely". Yes, America is an empire -no like Rome, Spain or Britain but an empire for various particular reasons that have been mentioned in varios blogs before. And as such it would fall followng the laws of history. However, past experiences are just hints of what may happen next. America and the americans have shown before and from other issues that they can learn from their mistakes. History will pove if this will be the case.

But none of us will be here to see that.

Kudos to the Post in sponsoring this forum. I am a very concerned American and it pleases me to see this debate. There was no greater demonstration of Alexis de Toqueville's "tyranny of the majority" than when the leader and other elected representatives of this nation, coupled with the cooperation of corporate media channels, convinced the population of the pressing need to engage in a unilateral military campaign cleverly branded as "Preemptive War Doctrine," which is nicer packaging than what it really is: Unprovoked Invasion of a Sovereign Nation. The first post is from Robert and his arguments are so ignorant and, unfortunately, typical, in many circles. I live in the South, where fundamentalist Christians abound, many of whom have married their faith into their political ideology (invariably Republican). They advocate violence just like the Islamic Fundamentalists (IF). They believe in their moral righteousness, just like the IF. They live in compartmentalized societies (usually suburban sprawl away from Brown peoples) and look down upon other Christian sects, just like the Shiites and Sunni Muslims (sorry for any over-simplification, but you see my point). The only real difference is that Christian Fundamentalist of America are not destitute, desperate, and read to take up arms and die for their causes. Peace.

Ignorant of history, Roman and American, but in perfect lockstep with tabloid thinking, Ms. Andoni offers nothing new to the 24 hr talking head clatter. Were she not in a position to influence, her mindless 'I guesses' could be forgiven. Read a book, better yet read a library full before you open your trap about empire. Keep adding gas to the fire with inflammatory rhetoric like that and 'empire' is exactly what you'll get. And then you will know the meaning of words like empire, Roman...and vassal.

The characterizaion of the oil rich oligarchies as the brave rebels resisting an American empire is sheer invention. We may as well say that pedophiles are not despicable but are bravely resisting the chafing moral rules of society. By hiding behind this idea, the Islamists carve out for themselves a safe haven for the criminality of their governments and the complete moral breakdown of their religion. America is not at all like Rome, it is more like ancient China which became a huge country without much war because it had a culture and a political system which appealed to many people.

I disagree with your assumption that America will inevitably seek to expand in an imperialistic fashion. America has already gone through repeated phases of imperialistic expansion and has moved in decidedly the opposite direction. Though I have no end of criticisms to lay at the feet of the invasion of Iraq for instance it is very obvious that American's do not want to rule this foreign land, we want them to take care of themselves and let us go home. While America might meddle in the affairs of other contries, it is always with a goal towards making the other contries better, not to conquer.

I'm guessing that you have no idea the number and size of permanent bases being built in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may be obvious that "Americans", in the plural sense and not the possessive sense, as a people do not want to rule or occupy Iraq, but the safe money is on the government of the United States having a vested interest in maintaining a presence to ensure the constant flow of oil/natural gas.

And your statement about the US and the goal of making other countries better is a joke as well. We kept a firm and large presence in Germany until we no longer saw a threat from the Soviet Union. We did not, however, have enough faith and confidence in the Germans themselves to thwart a Soviet presence. We don't conquer... We occupy in order to maintain our way of thinking and that the balance of power is always in our favor.

Personally, I see the Saudis at the core of many of our problems in Southwest Asia. Until we hold their feet to the fire and find out exactly how many terrorist/terrorist cells that they are backing, we are just flailing in the quicksand.

The obvious is so hard for some people to see. The United States has been on this course since Korea. But it has evolved from military domination as a goal (now an accepted fait accompli) to economic and political domination.

George Bush is the full flowering of the capitalist movement that has grown in the United States. His administration was willing to immorally invade a country and enforce democracy at the point of a gun. And at the same time allocate oil and economic territory to its corporate allies. No question of morality has been raised by either a compliant congress nor a mainstream press; the only complaint seems to be that the scheme is not working, so we now have to make an adjustment.

All this has taken place with the (mostly) full blessing of the electorate, who now are beginning to stir as the caskets and disabled return. Never mind that another country has been destroyed and its people displaced, killed, or wounded; the prevailing motto has been and will remain - I'm alright, Jack, screw you.

The economy is still in a growth period. The casualties are still minimal. The taxes are still reasonable. We have paid very little for this misadventure to date. But chickens do have a habit of coming home to roost, and the scenario has not played out completely as of yet. I have no idea of the damage that has been done to this country that may surface in the future, but I am sure it will not be insignificant. The threads that have developed over the last few years are coming together to weave a tapestry. And still we have people, many people, who refuse to see.

I probably should have mentioned in my previous post that 9/11 was due in large part to our 50 years of perpetual meddling in the middle east. Not that 9/11 was our fault but it was clearly the result of our being there. If we weren’t there over past 50 years it wouldn’t have happened.

Countries and people that hate the United States hate us because we have been militarily meddling in their affairs (not because we are free and good). In the same way we Americans would be furious if some other country sent troops or setup bases in or near America.

Often times Americans are not even aware of the hatred we are inspiring because the actions are done by CIA or hired mercenaries. This often results in ‘blowback’.

Do a search for “CIA blowback” to learn more…

Thus a non-intervention policy would make us much safer. And we wouldn’t be wasting trillions of dollars on pointless wars.

History does not provide us with the best way to run a country and its international affairs, nor does the author of this article. What does she want?

It’s not our job to police the world.

A non-intervention policy would have prevented 9/11.

A non-intervention policy will prevent a future 9/11.

America must stop being policeman/henchman for the United Nations. The rest of the world will just have to learn how to take care of themselves.

We can have a much more positive influence through free trade and setting a good example of a free democratic moral society by following the advice of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution.

Nobody would have any reason to attack us if we would stop inserting ourselves into everybody else’s wars/troubles. This has worked great for Switzerland who doesn’t have wars or terrorist attacks because they know how to mind their own business. We Americans could learn a lot from them.

We should stop trying to be an Empire and focus on being a Constitutional Republic.

I would be open to the possibility that our meddling might be doing some minor good in the world but unfortunately American foreign policy has been hijacked by the Military Industrial Complex whose goal is perpetual war for their power and greed -- as clearly demonstrated in Iraq and soon Iran. So every time we try to do some good it becomes perverted into evil.

So our best solution is just to mind our own business and stay out of the internal affairs of other nations. On balance this will do more good than harm.

If and when a real and direct threat presents itself then we can deal with it. For example bringing Osama bin Laden and his to justice is obviously worth doing. But unfortunately Bush seems to be attacking everyone in the middle east EXCEPT those who were actually responsible for 9/11. Osama bin Laden is not in Afghanistan nor is he in Iraq or even Iran. He is sitting perfectly safe in Pakistan and Bush has not lifted a finger to capture him.

I support Ron Paul to fix our broken foreign policy and save America. He seems to be the only candidate who is aware of these issues and willing to discuss them truthfully with the American people.

Go to YouTube and search “Ron Paul” to learn more…

Anonymous,

Palestinian civilian deaths via F-16s etc are not intentional, and result only because Hamas and Fatah "freedom fighters" hide behind the civians tey claim to be fighting for.

There is a big difference between attempting to kill terrorists who are hiding behind civilians, and accidentally killing innocents, and targeting the innocent as a matter of policy, calling it resistance and brainwashing young palestinians with pseudo chidrens TV shows.

There is no moral equivalency between F-16s targeting terrorists who use their own people as human shields and terrorists who target the innocent. The brutality of these "freedom figters" has cost palestinians and arabs in general sympathy among others who would be inclined to back their cause if not for their Dark Ages-like behavior.

Most of written history involves empires in one way or another. They rise and fall, enlarge and contract; rarely do their architects employ the lessons of history. For this comment I define empire as the region over which a given society exerts commanding influence, or hegemony. The super-power status of the US arises because of its great economic and military powers that allow it to exert its will in far places. Empires usually fail when their subjects rebel. This is now a problem for the US--its hegemony fails to capture the hearts and minds of those within it. Like its predecessors, the American empire is too self-serving to care what others think, or about their natural rights. Therein lies America's failure to progress in any noble purpose. The US empire may well have already begun its decline.

For an analysis/comparison of the US's empire-building with Rome's and Gt Britain's, I recommend everyone read Chalmers Johnson's recent book, "Nemesis". He argues that the people of Gt. Britain gave up the empire to save their democracy, and that the citizens of the US will have to do the same.

A second thought: It is somewhat senseless to go on arguing about which nation is better, (America vs Europe, etc.) because power has shifted to the multinational corporations, and their aims of globalization are driving foreign policy. They are not loyal to a nation; but rather to their shareholders.

For an analysis/comparison of the US's empire-building with Rome's and Gt Britain's, I recommend everyone read Chalmers Johnson's recent book, "Nemesis". He argues that the people of Gt. Britain gave up the empire to save their democracy, and that the citizens of the US will have to do the same.

A second thought: It is somewhat senseless to go on arguing about which nation is better, (America vs Europe, etc.) because power has shifted to the multinational corporations, and their aims of globalization are driving foreign policy. They are not loyal to a nation; but rather to their shareholders.

For an analysis/comparison of the US's empire-building with Rome's and Gt Britain's, I recommend everyone read Chalmers Johnson's recent book, "Nemesis". He argues that the people of Gt. Britain gave up the empire to save their democracy, and that the citizens of the US will have to do the same.

A second thought: It is somewhat senseless to go on arguing about which nation is better, (America vs Europe, etc.) because power has shifted to the multinational corporations, and their aims of globalization are driving foreign policy. They are not loyal to a nation; but rather to their shareholders.

All right. I haven't got time to read all these posts, so I'll risk self-dorquification. Who the hell is Murphy? Not the old lawyer, surely.

Kudos to Demetri: I was ready for him to get lost in pretentious wordiness, but in the end he was simply elegantly correct.

Robert of LA REALLY needs to read Confessions of an Economic Hitman and then Howard Zinn's A People's History of the U.S.

I pray we all remember that the medicine is love (not the cloying glue of coupling, but the healthy social connective tissue of respect, patience and mutually-assured sustenance).

Wat

Fyi - using English vocabulary, the US is a Republican form of Democracy. See Miriam Websters definitions (all emphasis added).

Democracy:
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Republic: (the INDIRECT type of Democracy - added)
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

I don't agree with one of your comments:
Roma was a democracy actually (according to that ancien times): From the beginning of the republican period, til the time they became the "ruler" of the known world (century I b.C.), Roma worked, basically, as a democracy of citizens. It was their force.

The people assembly, together with an aristocratic complement: the Senatus (SPQR), and a bi-personal temporary "monarchy" selected by democratic election: both Praetors (one institution controlling each other, in equilibrium), show the will of the people from Rome. And this will -born from a hard moral sense- ruled the world.

The problem arrived at that point (I b.C.). They (a little village -at the very begining-) were unable to incorporate new people to their own moral institutions and convictions (from an educational and cultural point of view) and that institutions, the core of them, were subverted (or perhaps collapsed by themselves). Then Roma became what they hate: a monarchy or dictatorship -for life-. And "real"(true) democracy (together with Senatus) and their moral force, desapeared.

The romans who let exist the first dictator "for life" (=Emperor) lose their liberty. And thus, "real" democracy was loosed too.

Americans for the most part are in denial about having an empire, but the numbers of U. S. military bases scattered throughout the world tell a different story.

A recent count puts the number of large and medium-sized U. S. military bases on foreign soil at 38. Smells like an empire to me.

http://www.alternet.org/story/47998/

One obvious difference between the American empire and all previous empires is that America can take down the rest of the world with her if she goes.

That will keep her around in some form.

One obvious difference between the American empire and all previous empires is that America can take down the rest of the world with her if she goes.

Andrew:
When you speak of Palestinian atrocies against Jewish people, please remember that the violence goes both ways. Israel civilian life loss is not even 1% of the Palestinian civilian life loss. I wish some of the ardent Israeli supporters would remember that. Just because its a suicide bomb does not make it less or more lethal then a F -16 dropping one ton bombs on civilian housing projects. Trust me, have seen it with my own eyes. The Israelis persecute Christians along with muslems in case u dont know. Systematic destruction of Jews? what are u talking about? Palestinians maybe kill 500 innocents a year. That aint nothing compared to what Israel kills. Sad to compare civilian life losses because I wish nobody would die but anybody can see that Israel kills civilians left and right. Christian and muslem palestinians perish everyday.
And yes we can agree on something I said way above in the post. Quit giving aid to Israel, Egypt and Jordan. I would love that. Keep American money in America.
Oh and the U.S. doesnt provide. The Egyptians and Saudis buy and pay for those weapons cash. A little known fact is Saudi and America are great economic friends because Saudi buys billions in weapons every year. Saudi buys more weapons from U>S> then America buys oil from them. Now, Israel, gets its weapons for free. Plus, loans. Plus, a veto at the United Nations every time it does something wrong.
America meddles and everyone knows it. But its still the best country in the world.
IMPEACH BUSH !

3 things for all of you to study and discuss:
1. Control Room, movie about al jazeera.
2. The Pentagon's New map by Thomas Barnett
3. Nemesis by Chalmers Johnson.

Anybody done this much homework? If so, please comment. These works are crucial.

Tony:

"Andrew's rebuttal of the "list of America's meddling" shows how little he knows about the Middle East."

1. Clearly you have no idea what your talking about. The US provides 60 billion in general and military aid to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. (Havent you noticed that the Royal Saudi Air Force and the Egyptian Air Force flies F-15E Fighters?) Tony get your facts straight, because trust me I know what I am talking about.

2. You are right about Hamas, but the 1948, 1967, and 1973 wars all began when (the UN created) Israel's arab neghbors tried to drive it to the sea. Now that you have failed to destroy Israel militarily you have created a culture that teaches that targeting five year old Jewish girls is justified. "Martyr Mouse" is indeed the posterchild for the palestinian "resistance" movement

I agree with you that Israel's "policies" are responsible for the creation in Hamas. Namely its "policy" of effectively defending its self from hostile Conventional Arab Armies and beating the crap out of them! Having failed to defeat Israel, the middle east has adopted a teenager based, passive aggressive psychology that complains about the bulldozing of houses, but calls the intentional extermination of innocents men, women, and children "resistance".

As fars as bulldozing houses are concerned, when I compare those actions to the intentional targeting of innocent women and children, I dont see how you can complain with a straight face. THe lesson for the Arab world: DONT START WHAT YOU CANT FINISH!

To those who are sick of cricizing America:

I love my children unconditionally, but that has not stopped me from recognizing, from time to time, that they have some problem that needs to be thought through and worked on. I have a responsibility toward them, and recognizing when they are going wrong, and trying to help, is just as loving as feeling how important they are to me.
I feel the same way about my country, my America. It's not exactly the same responsibility -- there are 300 million other Americans who share it, and have different ideas. But I have a responsibility to recognize problems and analyze them, and if I see a possible solution, I should advocate for it. Criticism is part of analysis of problems -- ask a plumber if he can fix a toilet without figuring out what's going wrong.

We have become an empire. That's just the flip side of saying we are a superpower. Empires have special problems, different from countries that aren't empires. We need to think about those problems, analyze them, reach a higher understanding. Its a tough job -- former empires have usually failed to do it, but we probably can if we just stop thinking that it's unpatriotic even to try.

I haven't read this latest effort to compare us to Rome-but while we should think of Rome when we see the present state the US is in-one should guard against superficial comparisons with the ancient world. The obvious comparison is that both are the dominate world power of their eras-and technically both are the only world powers that came to that power with a republican form of government. Of course, the "Roman Republic," was hardly that, but an aristocratic oligarchy, and the US, while sometimes a republic of sorts, has never been a "democracy." In fact most elections in the US are just as corrupt as those in ancient Rome-but the powers that be, here, have convinced most people that they are indeed a glorious exercise in free choice. It is ironic that the model most in the mind of our founding fathers was Rome-of the republic-which in a more than superficial reading should never have been the model and ideal. (I always get a chuckle when I see the fasces decorating the House chamber) Perhaps the fact that Rome also had slavery was the reason for the founders' admiration of it?

Sure Rome was an overtly imperial power-but especially in our twentieth century version-we created a new model for world domination-which doesn't even need colonies in the more obvious sense. (also remember we had an entire continent to call our own) But both rationalized the acquisition of power as a defensive measure-but at least the Romans were not such hypocrites about it.

But the clearest comparison between the two is that both believed they were fulfilling a special, preordained destiny that justified their actions, and twisted their rationalizing into seeing their dominance as a beneficence for those conquered or controlled. Rome and the United States were convinced that they were doing a service-even a godly one-for all the other poor people they encountered who were miserable living independently and in their own fashion. In this way, both great powers saw themselves as an exception to history-outside of the normal rules-and this notion-endlessly present in the image of America as the "city on the hill" as "the bringer of freedom" is not only colossally arrogant, logically impossible, and doomed to some sort of fall-for we cannot (as we saw in Rome) transcend what we are a part of, simply by believing it.

The worst outcome-in both cases- is on balance all the misery we imposed on other people-although, in both cases, there is no denying that aspects of what each civilization brought, were constructive

Author scarcely touched on the ways America's dominance is threatened--a glance at surveys of our retreat from leadership and control should alarm. I think the biggest loss is moral leadership. With only 5 percent of world population we should not underestimate the incentive we have given others to oppose us by our ham-handedness. We are musclebound and wisdom-less. We should focus on becoming, as Montesqieu wrote, a civilization of virtue, by which he meant strivers for good within bounds of reason.

Author scarcely touched on the ways America's dominance is threatened--a glance at surveys of our retreat from leadership and control should alarm. I think the biggest loss is moral leadership. With only 5 percent of world population we should not underestimate the incentive we have given others to oppose us by our ham-handedness. We are musclebound and wisdom-less. We should focus on becoming, as Montesqieu wrote, a civilization of virtue, by which he meant strivers for good within bounds of reason.

The same people that criticize American arrogance, demand American intervention when their pet cause, country, etc. is at stake.

I'm all in favor of the US pulling out of most of the world. Let the 3rd worlders kill each other to their heart's content.

You want to do something about Dafur? Then you pick up a gun and go over there and shoot the bad guys in the head. If you won't do that, then shut up. Your "caring" doesn't mean squat if not backed up with action.

Karl Andersen said:
"... the entire Roman army was not Roman, but merely Gothic and other barbarian mercenary troops... in 453 AD, Alaric the Great sacked Rome for the first time, it was not an invading army that betook Rome, but it was in fact the Roman army itself (or what had become of it) that sacked Rome. Alaric the Great was a Roman general himself!"

Or not. Also that date is about 50 years off, and he took the city without "sacking" it.
"... Alaric apparently hoped he would be promoted from the position of a mere commander of federates to a general of one of the regular armies. This was denied him, however..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaric_I

"Empires all reach a point where aggression, plunder and subversion become an unquestioned entitlement, an inherent prerogative fed by self-declared and self-serving claims to moral superiority."

Very entertainig note although it lacks originality. Also, it is overly simplistic in attaching "evilness" to the empire without going deeper. Aggression, plunder and subversion are not "empire" characteristics. They are human traits and are exercised on a daily basis in different settings. Darwinian as it may sound, the strong has always and will always prey on the weak. Much of the behavior that you attribute to "the great Satan" is present in many countries of the world as we speak and they are not "empires". Try to make the following experiment: take a map of Africa put on a blindfold and point randomly. The odds will be 100:1 at least that the dominant forces in your target all exhibit "imperial" traits. It is just a microcosmos (certainly even more gruesome than what you attribute to the US). On a larger scale, look to the East. Had the article been about imperialism in general (Islam included) it would have been more interesting, but a sectarian view, is nothing but evidence of bias. How about writing an article on the unchecked power of Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani? No? Too afraid? Too inconvenient? Nobody pays for it? Hmmm.

By the way, I loved the part of "moral superioriy". I wonder how that would fit in a culture that still stones women to death, directs children to become suicide bombers while the leaders live comfortable lives with prerrogatives that no one else enjoys and predicates the destruction of "infidels". Of course, that is not a moral dilemma it is religion, and we don't question religion (as long as it is ours right?)

"The fact the Rome was not a democracy should be seen in the context of human development"

Obviously the commentator is challenged by historical and political facts:

(1) The US IS NOT a democracy - it is a republic. Last democracy was Athens, Greece a few milennia ago.

(2) Rome was a republic with elected officials running the government (Tribune of the Plebes, quasetor, consul) until Augustus seized power and turned it into a quasi-hereditary empire.

Is the US Rome? No, of course not, but there are some lessons to be learned from the Romans. The US seeks influence, the Romans sought territory. But we live in an age where influence and information are very valuable-note how the living standards of Slovenia, a tiny nation bordering Austria are higher than the standards in the US. In all fairness, of course, the US is a larger eco-system that must support over 300 million people, so the comparison is not totally fair, but it does point out that the US has not done the best by it's citizens, with it's available resources. As was pointed out on McLaughlin yesterday (PBS), the US is a testosterone driven society that values failure-because by failure, the victors can validate their superiority over the vanquished-we call it competition-and universal healthcare has fallen by the wayside, in favor of militaristic might. Rome was an idea as much as a reality, and conquered territories often became part of Rome, or were expected to pay Rome, continually, for partial independence. The US, in order to gain supposed influence, is the payor in this case-and we have many countries lined up to suck out US money, like pigs at a trough. Meanwhile, China advances it's interests. SO, no, the US is not Roman at all. The US, corrupt as it is, is probably less corrupt than most countries, and will probably last in it's current form, for at least 200 more years. 1000 years? American will probably not exist, but not necessarily due to vanquishment-ideas of governments and best case solutions evolve over time, much as Europe has attempted to from a union. We don't know what the US region will look like 1000 years from now, but even if the US flag no longer flies over it, it may be a better place none the less, with US customs and liberties hopefully still prevailing.

"Americans, and particularly conservative Americans, are some of the most naive and gullible people on the planet, primarily because most Americans have no sense of the world outside of their own borders, except what Fox News decides to implant in their brains.

Al Franken made a very astute comment: conservatives have a relationship with the USA like a child has with their mommy. Mommy can do no wrong, and anyone who criticizes mommy is a bad person."

Why don't you come here and see how wrong you are instead os sitting on your fat lazy european a$$ all day long, complaining about how America doesn't do enought.

More leftist anti America spittle. Wow I am shocked at what you Democrat elitist snotty self proclaimed experts have to say, nothing but rubbish day after day.

Losers, you hate this country so much then get the hell out.

In the final analysis, it does not really matter whether our intentions are altruistic or not. As the present administration has so aptly demonstrated, power corrupts. And, the more absolute the power, the easier it becomes for those who wield it to presume this notion of entitlement.

However, history is the great leveler of all things. America is not the first power that thought it was the final word. All great past historical empires have been afflicted with this conceit. The present controversy on immigration is an excellent instruction on how history levels in an almost karmic way. We came to this continent, displaced the cultures and peoples who were established here and set about dominating them and the land they inhabited. Now, it is we are being slowly and inexorbaly displaced as waves and waves of people of color all over the world move into the West. The signs are unmistakable. the demographics, birth rates, mass migrations of people seeking a better life all point in one direction: It is now the people of color that white Europeans displaced in the past few centuries who are on the move, and on the rise.

This grand movement of peoples all over the world is merely the sweep of historical leveling. The white man's domination of the earth is coming to an end. Whether the new historical paradigm is for good or evil is irrelevant. It is coming and like those poor people of color in the past who rebelled against white intrusions on their cultures to no avail, we--the white peoples of the earth--now find ourselves fulfilling Christ admonition of kicking "against the pricks".

HURRAY FOR THE WASHINGTON POST for allowing reader comments after its stories. A lot more truth comes out of the comment section than is allowed in the story itself, mainly because the professional writer is limited to what she can say without hard evidence and sources. But our readership is so educated and well-traveled, having made friends (and not merely reporter/source relationships) with people from "enemy" countries, that they can tell the truth about them.

Greed of a few; control of the media by the vested--their ability to show what they choose, what is necessary to serve their own selfish ends and manipulate the crowds to join in the frenzy of patriotism; make good use a few incidents: and you have the poor country on its road to self-destruction. Treasury is empty now--looted without shedding a drop of blood within the sand castles by the men wielding power: the money of the gulllible taxpayers now nests in the vaults of the manipulators. And they pardoned their own kind. And they smeared those who pointed fingers and cried foul. Rome? Of course it is. Both: merely the manifestations of the powerful men at play, and getting the gullible boys to join in, for a while. And then the endgame. Our powerful men are no different than all the others powerful men, from the past and the present. Okay, so did we last even 500 years!

From manifest destiny to the present adventure in Iraq the view that the United States is exceptional, has driven much of our foreign policy. That "America" is exceptional has been the mythology taught in our schools and generally accepted uncritically by our citizens and exploited then by government to justify its actions and garner support for policies clearly detrimental to others as well as its own citizens. The sad part is that so many young Americans are so taken with this propaganda that they are willing to die "defending freedom" and in the process kill other innocents. Consumerism supported by the twin pillars of easy debt, and relentless advertising is a velvet gloved mailed fist as insidiously totalitarian as any wielded by the Soviets during the cold war years. A conservative president got it right many years ago when he warned us about a military-industrial complex. Its too bad Americans are so unaware of the control exerted over their lives by this alliance of corporations and government that has learned to so effectively combine philosophy, economics, and psychology to dominate. It is even sadder that our citizens are being co-opted in a drive to similarly control the rest of the world for the benefit of a startlingly wealthy oligarchy.

Andrew's rebuttal of the "list of America's meddling" shows how little he knows about the Middle East.

First: The US giving money to Saudi Arabia? Since when? Saudi Arabia is one of the world's largest oil producers and exporters in the world. A large part of their exports go to the USA. How about how much money has the USA (your tax money and mine) given to Israel since 1948?

Two: The problem of Palestine/Israel has been going on for close to 60 years. Hamas did not exist in 1948, or in 1967 or in 1973 (years of war between Israel and the Arabs). It is a new phenomena. Is it possible that the rise of Hamas is due to 40 years of occupation by a ruthless regime? Do you, Andrew, have any idea how many houses have been destroyed by the Israeli Army for "security and defense purposes"? Do you have any idea how many olive trees, thousands of years old (some of which may be from the days of Christ), and citrus groves have been demolished by the "Israel Defense Force"? (What an oxymoronic title. It is the most "offensive" force in the world.)

Three: Do you know that many of Israel's leaders since 1948 and until only recently, have been the heads of Jewish terrorist oprganizations much more vicious than Hamas? Have you ever heard of "Irgun", "The Stern Gang", etc? Have you ever heard of a small Palestinian village called "Deir Yassine" that was wipe off the face of the earth and most of its inhabitants, including women and children murdered by "Jewish terrorists" in 1948? Does "ethnic cleansing" ring a bell?
I suppose you would say "Yes, but they were fighting for their country"? Really? Does that justify destroying homes, killing women and children? Isn't this your point against Hamas?
Does that make it moral for Hamas, Israel or whomever to commit such atrocities? No, not by a long shot. No one is justified in taking the lives of innocent civilians. Do you accept this premise?
My advice to you is to look deeper than just what is happening today. Look back a few years. May be that will change your perspective.

Just so you do not start calling me names like "Arab terrorist", "Fascist", etc, I am an American who has been living (because of work) in Arab countries for a few years and got to know that, just like any other group of people, there are really good Arabs (along with the bad ones) who want nothing but peace and freedom but on their own terms, not what the USA would tells them what "freedom" is.

Google Ron Paul!

20,000 members of meetup.com have volunteered and are active in the cause.....Hillary has 700 vols, Romney 0, Rudy 0 etc etc etc.
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/about/

Time to get our house in order and halt the drive towards a military/police state.

Are you scared?? If so, vote for Rudy, McCain, Hillary or Obama.

If you are not scared...if you still believe in the American individual and that true principles of freedom spread with out the guns of the neo con trotskyists - then.......

Vote RON PAUL!!!!!

Richard II:

"Well, then there are these misses, like Vietnam and Iraq."

Dont look now, but you are debating Iraq with me right now. And if my history serves me correctly "debate" is exactly why the left succeeded in forcing our withdrawal from Vietnam leading to the deaths of millions in Southeast Asia between Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

You people still dont see the contradiction in openly debating others on Washingtonpost.com, about whether America sufficiently debates its issues openly.

JP, Thanks for clarifying what I did muddy with what I'd read in prior posts. Your point is very well taken, that we might have chosen a better target. Venezuela would have made much more sense had our ambition been to set up a democracy as a model, but as a Christian nation, it wouldn't lend itself to being linked to 9/11, so as to justify its invasion to the American public. When it comes to oil, Saudi Arabia has even more surface oil than Iraq, the only country that does, but the Saudi Royal family happens to be that rare gem, a Mid East ally, as well as longtime friends of the Bush family, to the extent that Bush cleared it with the King before going for a man whom he famously had a grudge against, Sadaam. Lastly, what made Iraq irresistible to my cynical way of thinking is that Iraq's military had been decimated by the Gulf War and our Intel had found no WMDs, so Bush and Cheney could safely tell America it'd be a cakewalk, which it was, had we only left before the insurgency began.

I didn't have to read this article to know what this blogger would say.

All I had to do was look at the name.

Maybe she should go back to sleeping with bin Ladin.

Maybe she should also ask when Muslims will get to the point where they will stop questioning their right to 1) immigrate to Western countries, 2) then hypocritically complain about Western values, and 3) chop off heads.

Excuse me, Robert from Los Angeles, but I suspect you really don't have a clue of the sentiments of the "anti-war" American, nor should you take the liberty of speaking for them.

The people you mention are liberal interventionits, i.e. those who want to use American dominance in the world to coerce others into a position they feel is morally correct, often with the force of arms. They are not philosophically different from conservative interventionists, who want to use American arms to do their bidding, which simply has a different set of priorities. Both groups fully subscribe to a doctrine of American exceptionalism and to the use of violence to achieve ideological goals. Both groups are by definition "pro-war", as they both advocate it. Your failure to not only understand the point of the essay, but rather to even understand the basic philosophical issue involved, shows that the writer is indeed correct at postulating a near total lack of interest in the American population of the basis of our claims on the world. You silly personal attack on the author also demonstrates youself to be a run of the mill sexist, as well. Strands of anti-Arab racism show through, in addition.

Your other, "historical" points are easily dispatched, as well. We are in the Middle East quite NOT because of Arabs inability to take care of themselves, but rather to insure continued access to the energy resources we must have in order to continue our economy's expansion. One would have thought that in the 21st century, white man's burden would be thought of as a rather tired explanation of the need to dominate resource-rich and gun-poor countries. One can point to continued efforts on our part to make sure friendly Arabs rely on American protection in perpetuity in order to prop up their domestically unpopular regimes. When forces arise in the region that threaten the current status quo, we act brutally to make sure they do not succeed in creating true independence (Mossadeq, among others).

Here is an interesting line, not my own: "If a nation of 5% of the world population spends over 50% of world military budget, the persuasive power of that country is in decline". I think many, many American see this and are beginning the question the line of bull fed to them for decades, by our so-called "elites".

David:

Sick, evil stuff. Peace be with you, brother.

David:

Sick, evil stuff. Peace be with you, brother.

One more point about the good ol' U.S. of A.:

Remember 9/11? The murder of civilians was an evil, reprehensible act according to Americans on 9/11.

Remember Iraq and Afghanistan? The murder of civilians is "collateral damage" and therefore considered by Americans an acceptable act of war.

Osama murdered 3,000 civilians; W. has murdered over 100,000 civilians.

Of course, Americans don't mourn the loss of Muslim civilians. Americans are fine with Muslims dying by the thousands.

And yet these same Americans wave the flag and claim that America really is the most righteous nation to ever exist on the Earth.

Our hypocrisy is stunning.

Is America Rome? No.

Is America an Empire? Yes.

Is America dying? Yes.

How much longer does America have? As a world-dominating economic power: Several decades, at most. As a world-dominating military power? Our military dominance is dying right now in the Middle East.

We are living in interesting times. The United States of America will not collapse like Rome, nor even like Britain.

The United States of America is going to collapse in the same manner as the Soviet Union. Sudden, complete, and forever.

But don't worry. You won't mourn the loss of empire so much as you mourn the loss of ... gasoline and food. Pity the poor souls who inherit this mess.

Don Quixote:

I've been to over 50 countries, from EU to Africa, Asia & Latin America, from Communist countries to Democratic to Socialist. I've lived overseas; International affairs has been my vocation. I'm a first generation-born American.

While no person or government has ever been perfect (not including religious persons), the USA has been most consistent and self-critical than any nation in it's time. Arrogance, yes some, like in all human communities whether it be a nation, government, profession, religion, organization, etc. As a society, most visibly over time, the USA has been self-critical (even isolationist). Whatever level of failure the USA has made as a society in anyone's eyes in amount of self-criticism (or conversely arrogance) on any given issue in any given time period, one cannot deny our internal self-criticism, and resulting social change. What other nation has been been more internally and openly so?

I've seen, and studied, how many different peoples, our fellow human brothers and sisters, live and govern. While I love to travel and experience new cultures/ peoples/ traditions/ perspectives/ not to mention vistas, and hope to visit every nation on Earth, each time I travel I'm grateful to God for providing liberty, the US Consitution, those who fought to obtain, develop and preserve it and for being born in the USA. People's of all cultures/nations freely reside, and are, the USA.

God Bless America and the Human race

America is Rome in the sense that Americans see their political system and cultural characteristics as beneficial to less developed peoples who have been hindered by harmful rulers or backward traditions. Romans (like Americans)felt that other peoples would naturally want to adopt the ways of a superior culture. This underlying belief may have helped the Romans (as it currently helps Americans) to justify the death and destruction that results from long-term military action. However, both ancient and modern insurgents (who may think of themselves as freedom fighters or patriots) would likely disagree with the conquering peoples on this point. It was the Roman historian, Tacitus, who reported the words of Calgacus to the Caledonians: "The Romans create a desert and call it peace."

Such "inferior" Islamic thinking? wow!

Speed123,

NAFTA has had a small positive impact on the U.S. One such Congressional Budget Office analysis can be found at: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=4247&type=0&sequence=4

My larger point is that Ron Paul has said that he would withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA and the WTO. Yet, he has not explained how he would preserve the trade liberalization achieved by these mechanisms. To date, he has not suggested initiating bilateral negotiations with all of the nations with which the U.S. has normalized trading relations. Yet, if the U.S. were to withdraw from WTO, it would lose the benefits of those trading relations that were created under the WTO unless separate negotiated agreements were reached. Unless he advances a program toward that end and can demonstrate the reasonable prospect that he could achieve such agreements, the withdrawal from such arrangements would be a step away from trade liberalization.

In no way does that mean that I believe NAFTA or the WTO are the optimal model for trade liberalization. In my view, simple elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers would be the optimal approach to bringing about free trade. However, in international relations, practicality and not idealism define arrangements. With regard to trade, countries want assurances that their interests will be protected e.g., "cheating" would be avoided. Therefore, they work toward models in which there is an enforcement mechanism. Moreover, they often seek to maximize net benefits through risk diversification. Hence, the multilateral WTO approach has been the principal means by which trade liberalization has been achieved.

Foreign aid has often been wasteful. It has often flowed to states that are not necessarily allies. It can be better delivered based on a stricter definition of the national interest. Nonetheless, this does not mean that all foreign aid has been a waste of U.S. taxpayer resources. Nor does it mean that there are not occasions where it might be in the U.S. interest to assist a friendly but illiberal state for the larger purpose of safeguarding national security.

At the same time, investments such as the Marshall Plan and Asian reconstruction that followed World War II have yielded tremendous geopolitical and economic benefits to the U.S. Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy would eschew such programs as the Marshall Plan. Without the Marshall Plan, western Europe might well have succumbed to instability. That would have created an opportunity for the Soviet Union to expand westward.

Finally, Israel and the U.S. share important interests that have evolved with time. During the Cold War, Israel stood as one part of a growing U.S. bulwark against Soviet influence in the vitally important Middle East. Today, Israel remains a staunch and dependable ally. The Israel-Egypt-Jordan relationship has offered a measure of stability. Needless to say, a U.S.-Israel relationship need not preclude U.S. relationships with Arab states unless those states choose not to enter into relationships with the U.S. U.S. interests are key to shaping its relationships.

Our Goverment Can't Get Herself Out Of This Mess!
Arogance is the major part of it, and greed that we represent, I'm Shamed For Our goverment!
This is not the America we know!

Our Goverment Can't Get Herself Out Of This Mess!
Arogance is the major part of it, and greed that we represent, I'm Shamed For Our goverment!
This is not the America we know!

Don states:

"Finally, Ron Paul is, in fact, a neo-Isolationist. He seeks withdrawal from NATO, the World Trade Organization, and NAFTA. He seeks a policy of strict non-interventionism even when U.S. allies are threatened. He believes the foreign aid budget should be eliminated altogether, even as foreign assistance is one of many non-military tools by which the U.S. can safeguard and advance its interests."

Exactly how are the policies of NAFTA benefiting the average American or average Mexican?

You, like more status quo politicians, are assuming that it is in my interest for un-free trade such as NAFTA to continue. In reality this pact is little more than a new form of corporate subsides.

As for foreign aid....GIVE ME A BREAK...this policy is little more than trying to prop authoritarian regimes and appease influential lobbies in the US.

Please tell me the geo political necessities for supporting Isreal with 3 billion a year??!

This policy was fine for the cold war but it is no longer beneficial - in fact it is a detriment when dealing with much more important Muslim countries and world opinion.

It seem that you base your idea of American interests on Bushie "loyalty" a la Libby or on corporate interests. Neo con elitism...

Ron Paul believes in free trade and relations with ALL nations .... not controlled trade for corporate profits a la Nafta and favoring one foreign country or lobby when it is against the greater interest of the American people.

King Richard the II, et al, Praise the Lord Eclat + "i".

"Together Forever With Source-One!"

- Ja Joz, Ya.

"We are different from every other "empire" (yeah right) in that we recognize and constantly debate our faults and strengths on websites, just like this. It is this reason that I think that the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated"

Well, then there are these misses, like Vietnam and Iraq.

I still pretty vividly recall the complete silence and pre-emptive submission right before the Iraq war started.

I just thought this can't be true, absolutely no level of self criticism and reflection. Any voice that disagreed was quickly eliminated, a country of lemmings.

So much to " constantly debate our faults..."

Pfeh! You've all got it wrong. Rome fell for economic reasons. The lions were eating up all the prophets

Good luck in your career pursuit, Juliet. Hopefully, you will have the opportunity you desire. Certainly, the U.S. is in need of having good information from the vitally important Middle East.

You could make a strong argument that the Iraqi Muslims saved the world. If the US would have been successful in Iraq, the pro-lifers would have been in Iran, Syria and possibly Venezuela by now. The pro-life movement is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the America public.

I think Nathan's post is wrong and self-contradictory for the same reason Ms. Andoni's post is. America is a nation that constantly self criticizes, innovates, and adapts. We live in constant terror that we are losing our edge and thus always make the required adjustments overtime.

Nathan I think your post declaring the end of American "ascendency" is an example of this radical self-critique that is unique to America. The 1980s were supposed to herald a time when Japan Inc. would bury us decadent Americans once and for all.

We are different from every other "empire" (yeah right) in that we recognize and constantly debate our faults and strengths on websites, just like this. It is this reason that I think that the reports of our demise are greatly exaggerated.

Dear Ms. Andoni,
I am writing to ask if you have any advice for a journalist who is getting a B.A. in journalism, and wants to become a Middle East correspondent. You have been published in American, British, and Egyptian newspapers. I am inspired by your versatility.

Thank you,
Juliet Blalack
juliet_s_blalack@hotmail.com

Unfortunately most of this debate must be rendered boot for the simple fact that the great origin myth of the United States, so long its driving impetus, has been stripped away from an excess of superficial prosperity. The American Dream in its original form during the early- and mid-19th century combined the protestant and puritan material focus with an ethic of delayed gratification -- "If I work hard now, my children, or maybe even me if I'm lucky, will have a better life." Unfortunately during the post-war periods of the '20's and '50's, America truly was the richest country in the world, with the most advanced consumer goods, the most land, the largest markets, and, ever since the '50's, consistently one of the top incomes per-capita's in the world. Where does that leave the american dream? The American Dream was as much a societal aspiration as an individual one. Unfortunately now that America and her citizens has reached the peak of their power, the ideological imperative that drove American ascendency is removed, creating a vacuum where there used to be a driving force. It is only natural that America should now find itself at a moral and ideological crossroads now that its most basic idea has been left behind by the march of history.

Anonymous Lets break down this "American Meddling".

1. Israel: Should we just allow the likes of Hamas to continue to target 5 year old Israeli girls without supporting the only democracy in the region?

Middle East: We give more money to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan than we do to Israel. Does that bother you should we cut off support for them all together? That would be fine with me. Maybe we actual agree on something.

Columbia: Maybe Drug Cartels and Narco Traffikers are just misunderstood.

Kyoto-Other treaties: Refusal to sign Kyoto and Non-Proliferation is NOT "American Meddling". When other nations demand we do so they are "meddling" in our affairs.

Sudan: We have no troops is Sudan. But I guess its ok with you that hundreds of thousands of black africans are killed by the Sudanese government, as long as America isnt involved?

American Meddling:
1) Palestine/Israel
2) Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran/shah, Jordan, Algeria, Lebanon, Iraq
3) Colombia
4? Panama
5) Venenzuela
6) Japan/ constitution
7) Koreas
8) Vietnam
9) Breakaway countries of Russia
10)Philipines
11)Refusal to sign Kyoto treaty
12)Refusal to sign Non Proliferation treaty
13) America is number one ARMS DEALER of world
14) somalia
15) sudan
16) illegal prisons/ secret prisons
17) No reason war in Iraq/ thousands of civilians dead
Is America an empire? Probably. They do meddle and intervene. But who wouldnt? When your the strongesr kid in school, you get the right to be the bully.
Is America still the greatest country in the world? Dang Right! We are the best. Everyone is jealous. Lots of people in the world hate us. But I guarentee you if given a Visa they would swim here. It is the best country in the world.
Every country has made its mistakes. But definitely America has helped a lot of countries and people of the world also. As an America Palestinian Muslem, I condemn terrorism and Unjustified wars. But I also know that America is the best and has treated most people of the world the best.
IMPEACH Bush!

Ms. Adoni,

There is something very ironic, (bordering on comical) about a person who initiates a debate on the website of one of America's best known newspapers, questioning whether there is adequate discussion "about whether and why America is entitled to win and to dominate", while you use our tradition of free and open debate to initiate just such a discussion on Washingtonpost.com.

Some empire! We cant even keep those who call us immoral and arrogant off of the website of the largest newspaper in our capital city. A few more points about your hypocricy.

1. Persons opposing the geo-polical policies of Rome were not permitted to initiate debates about whether Roman Legions "were entitled to win" against the barbarians Britain and Germania. If this were Rome, your comments on this message board would most assuredly have you crucified within 24 hours. I am sure that right now the FBI is not break your door in and dragging you off to be eaten by lions in our "coliseum"

2. I felt pretty comfortable with the moral superiority of America and western civilization in general, when I was watching news reports of Hamas throwing Fatah opponents off rooftops, and listen to a news reports on BBC where a Fatah supporter begged for his life by telling his Hamas executioners "Why are you killing us? I am not a Jew!"

America is not morally perfect. We dont have to be. But we are in fact better than you and your anti-American ilk would like to admit. That would require you to admit that the cause of all of the violence and barbarity that infects the Middle East is not Jews, Neo-Cons, America, or Israel, but a culture in the arab world that teaches that killing the innocent is justifiable to end what you call "occupation" and "oppression". Lets just say Martyr Mouse and Mickey Mouse have different outlooks on life.

When I hear you rant about American immorality and imperialism three words come to mind:

Glass Houses and Stones

Dear Doubtful Thomas:
Congratulations. You seem to me rather sure than doubtful, and also rightly sure.

Dear Robert:
Follow Doubtful Thomas’ advice. And go back to school. Americans learn only American geography and history, watch only American media, and know little nothing about the rest of the world, not of the monuments tourists visit, but of other mentalities.

They live in another planet, where they have been brainwashed into thinking they live in paradise, while those who brainwash them also squeeze them, (go see Sicko), but they don’t see it, or don’t mind, because they live in paradise.

Brainwashing is what they do in many places, true, bnut in America everything is bigger, much, much bigger. Now it is not the superior race, or the superior religion, but the superior nation teaching the world. Unfortunately that nation has to learn first (Go see Sicko)

Yes everything bigger, and unfortunately too, arrogance, a by-product of ignorance, sorry to tell you, because I was a fanatic pro-american in the sixties, watching Rock Hudson and Doris Day, and that is almost all I knew about America. Paradise.

Dear RBS:
I think there is someone who described the empire better than George Lukas: Michael Moore (Go see Sicko)

Getting back to the matter of Rome -- American neocons, typical Likudniks, and conservative American historians not only think of America as the new Rome, they relish and exult in the idea. Neocon Max Boot, for example, has actually urged Americans to emulate British imperialists with stiff upper lips and pith helmets in the noonday sun. Robert Kaplan has glorified the U.S. "grunts" saving civilization, he says, in faraway jungle lands, from barbarian inroads. Applauding the neocons, historian Niall Ferguson has criticized the Bush Administration and Americans generally for not being imperialist enough and slacking off when the opportunity, he says, cries out for more Roman imperial order and discipline that failed states can't provide for themselves.

The whole PNAC Doctrine, the neocon script for Bush's foreign interventions, is based on unchallenged U.S. military might in the service of geopolitical dominance and a unilaterally maintained unipolar world ruled by U.S. force. "Globalization" is now commonly viewd as "soft" U.S. imperialism as an adjunct to outright military invasions and interventions. Their Project for a New American Century is all about empire. The belligerent punditry of neocons Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are nothing if not overtly and unabashedly imperial, has a vocal following, and impugns traditional liberal internationalists and diplomatists as "isolationists".

So it's not just Al Jazeera who alleges imperialism -- even the American authors and promoters of it take great pride in openly boasting about their allegiance to it -- and even their ignominious disasters such as bloody, radicalized Iraq and shaky narcophile Afghanistan have hardly shaken their appetite for it.

The irony is that the blank-eyed zombies of the Republican base, whose postings above on this list expose their abysmally low level of culture and awareness, somehow can spew vile epithets and vulgar obscenities against those who do nothing but point out that global imperialism is what Loyal Bushies find most exhilarating about their ideological mission.

"We're an empire now," said a high White House aide in that celebrated interview, "and we make our own history and the reality-based community just has to sit and watch." [paraphrase]

No mainstream Democrat has yet seriously taken up arms against the basically imperial nature of America's prevailing foreign policy mindset. That is why so few Democrats had the integrity to step forward and vote against the Senate's blank check for Bush's Iraq "war". They were intellectually disarmed by the ingrained, underlying mental frame they share with Bush's people. They dared not argue against its deeper error. Fortunately, we have Chalmers Johnson's trilogy ("Nemesis" etc.) to redeem America's honor and awareness if anyone cares to read it.

To HJBYER:

I make no implication that the United States is in Iraq because of its benevolence. You must be confusing my questions to Ms. Andoni with other people's assertions. My point in asking the question about American power projection in Iraq and Afghanistan is that if the United States is solely worried about power, it picked some rather silly places to assert its military muscle, especially given the costs. Ms. Andoni argues that the United States is the new Roman empire and that, as such, is grabbing at power where it can. Well...there are plenty of better places to use our influence than in Iraq and Afghanistan that would pay off better in the short run....IF the U.S. were only worried about power projection. And if the U.S. were really concerned ONLY about oil supply (and I say only to make a point that it may be a consideration among many), don't you think America would have invaded Venezuela already? It's in the traditional American sphere of influence with no other major power able (or even willing, right now) to protect it from an American-inspired coup. If an argument for American empire centers around oil, then there are some major holes in the logic. THAT's what I'm saying.

PS: Being specific and providing examples is the only way to make solid arguments. If people are being vituperative and oblique in their criticisms, then there is no room for constructive engagement. So, thanks for being engaging.

Lamis dosen't know her history. If only the US were more like Rome this war would have been over.
The Romans totally destroyed Carthage their no 1 enemy. Same with the Jews when they kept making trouble. No P.C. handwringing for the Romans. We try to fight a humane war. So there is a big difference Lamis.

When the US conquered Germany and Japan we could have wiped them off the face of the earth, which is what Japan and Germany would have done if they had won. No, we gave them freedom and helped their economies to develop.

Lamis you work for an organization in bed with murderers of your own women and children. Your bizarre religion abuses women and has no regard for people of other faiths or no faith. Finally, you are totally ignorant of history, so why are you writing, idiot?

Lamis dosen't know her history. If only the US were more like Rome this war would have been over.
The Romans totally destroyed Carthage their no 1 enemy. Same with the Jews when they kept making trouble. No P.C. handwringing for the Romans. We try to fight a humane war. So there is a big difference Lamis.

When the US conquered Germany and Japan we could have wiped them off the face of the earth, which is what Japan and Germany would have done if they had won. No, we gave them freedom and helped their economies to develop.

Lamis you work for an organization in bed with murderers of your own women and children. Your bizarre religion abuses women and has no regard for people of other faiths or no faith. Finally, you are totally ignorant of history, so why are you writing, idiot?

Lamis dosen't know her history. If only the US were more like Rome this war would have been over.
The Romans totally destroyed Carthage their no 1 enemy. Same with the Jews when they kept making trouble. No P.C. handwringing for the Romans. We try to fight a humane war. So there is a big difference Lamis.

When the US conquered Germany and Japan we could have wiped them off the face of the earth, which is what Japan and Germany would have done if they had won. No, we gave them freedom and helped their economies to develop.

Lamis you work for an organization in bed with murderers of your own women and children. Your bizarre religion abuses women and has no regard for people of other faiths or no faith. Finally, you are totally ignorant of history, so why are you writing, idiot?

Lamis dosen't know her history. If only the US were more like Rome this war would have been over.
The Romans totally destroyed Carthage their no 1 enemy. Same with the Jews when they kept making trouble. No P.C. handwringing for the Romans. We try to fight a humane war. So there is a big difference Lamis.

When the US conquered Germany and Japan we could have wiped them off the face of the earth, which is what Japan and Germany would have done if they had won. No, we gave them freedom and helped their economies to develop.

Lamis you work for an organization in bed with murderers of your own women and children. Your bizarre religion abuses women and has no regard for people of other faiths or no faith. Finally, you are totally ignorant of history, so why are you writing, idiot?

Lamis dosen't know her history. If only the US were more like Rome this war would have been over.
The Romans totally destroyed Carthage their no 1 enemy. Same with the Jews when they kept making trouble. No P.C. handwringing for the Romans. We try to fight a humane war. So there is a big difference Lamis.

When the US conquered Germany and Japan we could have wiped them off the face of the earth, which is what Japan and Germany would have done if they had won. No, we gave them freedom and helped their economies to develop.

Lamis you work for an organization in bed with murderers of your own women and children. Your bizarre religion abuses women and has no regard for people of other faiths or no faith. Finally, you are totally ignorant of history, so why are you writing, idiot?

Thanks, Kevin, for your post.

How can the US be imperialist, by defition and historical context, e.g. Roman, Ottoman, Soviet, etc., if the US did not govern Germany, Italy, Japan, China, etc., post WWII, and all other opportunities including wanting out of Iraq at some point?

How can a Pres./VP be kingly, dictatorial or tyrannical, by defition, if their 'subjects' can vote against them successfully (Nov. 2006)?

Economic imperialism: How can the US be imperialistic economically, by definition, when China's balance of payments, as an example, with the US has been world records for years, and when China can dictate their currency terms, trade laws, etc? And, when the EU, Brazil, India, etc., can veto US trade goals/objectives at any turn? BTW - China owns, monetarily, more of the US than the US does China.

The US is a global economic participant, albeit a very strong one - not surprisingly given we've had free minds, relatively, and the same Consitution, for 230+ years, unlike the rest of the world; yet, we're not imperialistic economically.

Economic imperialism one sees today comes in the form of multi-nationals and their (historically successful) advocacy efforts. China, India, Japan, EU, Russia as well as Venezuela, for example, all now have for profit and state-run multi-nationals successfully advocating their interests globally, not just US firms. In other words, if US firms were to pull out of global advocacy, to make a point, there still would exist economic imperialism. And, it wouldn't spur the other global multin-nationals to follow US lead. National governments, as one recent Economist editorial noted on reduction of hunger, national governments hold the key to sustained change. Make them Democratic (clear balance of power), representative, politically inclusive, less corrupt, sustained change occurs.

Cheers, and Thank You God for the blessing of our country and all the well-intentioned American's who strove/strive to preserve and extend it's Godly blessings (as opposed to those one believes is extending misguided, non-Godly blessings in the name of the US). Happy Belated Indepedence Day!!!

Speed123,

I don't use any different screen names here. Moreover, I am not a neoconservative. I subscribe to the pragmatic Realist school of foreign policy. Earlier in this thread, I highlighted some of the differences.

Speed123,

Even as the Cold War is over, the NATO alliance and security arrangements in East Asia have contributed to a long period of stability in which Western European countries, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc., have developed world-class competitiveness and economic prosperity. The benefits of trade have more than outweighed the costs of such security arrangements. Those benefits continue to flow to the U.S. even today.

Although Al Qaeda does not rival the Soviet Union in terms of its destructive capacity, Al Qaeda does not present the only geopolitical risk. The U.S. will need to rebuild its relationship with Russia. It will need to ensure that Iran cannot dominate the vital oil-producing regions of the Middle East. It will need to cooperate with China so that China's continuing evolution will be peaceful. There need not be any wars. But active diplomacy and robust engagement will be required to bring about a good outcome on all these fronts. Pakistan's stability will be of global significance. If Pakistan were to fall to radical pro-Taliban elements, the ramifications of that development would likely be as significant as those following the fall of the Shah in Iran in 1979.

Finally, Ron Paul is, in fact, a neo-Isolationist. He seeks withdrawal from NATO, the World Trade Organization, and NAFTA. He seeks a policy of strict non-interventionism even when U.S. allies are threatened. He believes the foreign aid budget should be eliminated altogether, even as foreign assistance is one of many non-military tools by which the U.S. can safeguard and advance its interests.

Realists, in the classical sense, are committed to the national interest and consider the balance of power in seeking to sustain the kind of international equilibrium in which the nation can be secure and prosperous. Such an approach requires substantial engagement with the world at large.

Don,

While you chastise someone for "omitting" you forgot the 10 million plus killed and starved by the Bolsheviks.

Jacob (Yakub),

Under a different screen name you crazy neo con / zionist!

This is not the Cold War any more, Don, and the al queda threat is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the Soviet threat.

Our critical interests are simply those of foreign benefactors such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a realist that believes in commerce and conversation with all nations. Military bases are costing billions of dollars to keep and are of no strategic interest.

Who are we protecting Europe from?

Why guard the Korean border when we cannot guard our own?!

As Jefferson said: "peace, commerce and honest friendship will all nations - entangling alliances with none."

Time to regroup and rethink our position in the world.

PS - Ron Paul just beat McCain for campaign war chest for this quarter. Paul is not #3 and climbing.

What US democracy are you talking about? With 80 per cent of the media in the hands of a few, who belong to the same lobby, Presidents elected by only 1/4 of the people, and candidates for Senator, Representative or the White House, having no chance at all unless they submit themselves to the Jewish lobby, as Richard Pearl declared (with nicer words), where is democracy?

Mike,

The run-up to World War II was "peaceful," the standard of living "high," and life "harmonious," if one omits the Great Depression; the expansionism of Germany, Italy, and Japan; and, Nazi persecution of Jews and the Soviet pogroms.

I wonder if this author would be posting the same opinion if Osama Bin Laden and Islamists who want a world dominated by a unified religious - political order of a new Caliphate had just conquered the last secular, Christain country. I doubt it. Maybe we can get a Christian author whose head is not up their . . well you know.

Allah bless Secular "KING"-GEORGE BUSH & "QUEEN"-LAURA BUSH, and family, friends & Nations & People. Praise The Holy "NO-MAN" LORD/ECLAT + "i"! Eeeeee Haaaa.

Ize Gots da Gooooossssyyy Wooooozzzi bumparinos and a Holy eclectro vibrational spinal frontal lobal Holy interactions and more.

P.S. Sistar, unlike bin Laden & Al Zawahri, and followers, They (terrorists) all Smoke "HASHISH-Marijuanna and Opium too.

This is what Muhajeen & bedoin people do for past time. And you think Americans (Mr. Bush et al ) do not know??????

Like America fought "Mafia" bad elements, so to speaketh, in America, then ISLAM [even if you have to use "SHARIA Hadith Laws (et al) against them, you must destroy All that they stand for. Justice is not blind and one can run but one can never ever vhide! Zero LOVE. just Selfish loving thy self.

O.K. O.K, Hugggs n a kisses to ALL da Brethrens & the Sistars!

Ah, life is so beautiful with eclati-On's and never off's!

Do Not Support Palistinain Macho killers. Stay out of Israeli & Plistinian business! I warned You, Iran will get nuked in ten city's and Gaza will be a Parking lot for 1000 years or more! Not one Person will live on that cursed non Islamic land!

Aljazeera loves trouble, so if no Mid East trouble then No (Modern News outlook approach) Aljazeera. How old is Aljazeera by the way???? and who's technology are you using? SAMSUNG??? DELL, CISCO, Micro Soft etc..? Was you created, via Islamic Zionistic Mafiasos of Post 911 contributors or brain child(s)? Wow!

Vote: SECULAR-GOVERNMENT, Seperate from SHARIA GOVERNMENT!

P.S.: Indonesia & Malaysia will become, Eclatarian & Christian/MORMON! And Wahabbi habbibi Saudi will loose alot of business. Ya Ya. this is All Eclati-on, not Off, Prophecy! Ya Ya.

Again: If any thing happens in america under Islam, then Islam & their "Immams" are going to "Quantanam Bay Cuba" and other Alaskian gulags. Hay, They can build a "Wonders of the World" Mosque made out of Ice Cubes! Like Igloos! And ALL American Islamic Children (in belly) will be destroted!

So go get Al Zawahri, before I do. Atleast aljazeera will have first honors, or else , I, An American Israeli, will get him or them hoodlums and bin Laden Wanna be's types and their trigger happy accomplices! Ya Ya. I know where!

P.S. President Mashariff of Pakistan (Sunni) is a good Mon! Please, support him & down with SHARIA Government Rule! Secular always wins & preapocalyptic thinkers (believers) will loose! Ya!

Ron Paul would merely shift the nation from one foreign policy extreme to another. His Neo-isolationist philosophy would lead to a wholesale abandonment of the nation's critical overseas interests. Rather than reducing the nation's geopolitical risk exposure, such an approach would increase it. The years leading up to World War II offer powerful evidence of the inherent shortcomings of such a posture.

During the height of the Cold War, Ron Paul was advocating unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament and a withdrawal from NATO. Had the U.S. eliminated its nuclear weapons, it would have been left at the mercy of a Soviet Union that, at the time, enjoyed a superior conventional capacity and a powerful nuclear arsenal. The U.S. deterrent would simply have ceased to exist. Had the U.S. withdrawn from NATO, the door would have been opened for a westward advance of the Soviet empire. All said, the Cold War might well have come to a very bad conclusion.

The U.S. can ill-afford to compensate for the excesses of Neoconservatism by embracing the hazards of Neo-isolationism.

I dont buy into the America equals Rome in Decline argument. Yes, America has had a deplorable history of selfish actions, propping favorable governments and recently roughshodding world opinion in the pursuit of its misdirected policies at best and blatant pursuit for oil at worst. However, IMO, the biggest threat America is facing is not from the misguided Islamic terrorists but from within. To be specific, its from the X'ian extremists who are hell bent on stamping their brands of thought on the rest of America. Someone rightly mentioned the freedom of speech and expression as the best thing to have happened to America. However, these Bible-thumper's are trying to take away that very facet from American society.
People may say that they are in a minority, but puhlease, Bush was put in power by this supposedly minority.
The new generation has to pull up its collective socks to their knees if they want to live in a better world than their fathers. (Again, My opinion).

Lastly, there was a post in which the writer mentioned that America is losing more money in Iraq than it would have earned in Oil dollars. I agree. But why do you think so many of the Republicans are now questioning Dubya's logic and Management? When Iraq was invaded, it was thought that the war would be over in a matter of weeks and the Oil Pot at that time did look very appealing. If it weren't for jingoism and stupidity, gas would still have been <$1 a gallon like in the good ol days

I hope we withdraw from the world scene so we don't have to listen to moronic America-haters.

I don't really care about the world society. Lets raise the walls, withdraw our troops inside our borders and let the world have at it. We can return to those peaceful times before the end of WW2 where the world was so much more harmonious and gloabal living standards were so much higher. Then all of the America-haters will have the wonderful world they want.

I'm tired of being the scapegoat for all of the world's problems. Let these arrogant pundits figure out a better solution.

Save the Republic!

End the Imperial policies and the size of the corrupt federal government!

Vote RON PAUL 2008!

"Also interesting is each nation's rate of expansion: America's was largely negotiated through business deals (e.g., Louisiana Purchase, Manhattan Island). Rome's, on the other hand, was hard-fought"

So you are saying driving the Native Americans (American Indians) out of their land was done through business deals? What about taking California from Mexico? As I recall, it was a war and not a business deal. How about Hawaii? Don't tell me that was a business deal to.

If only there were more Demetris around, the US could start to think there's a chance that the world will, at some point, change the way it feels about this country. For starters, if the presidential election comes to be more popular than TV reality shows, then there's hope that constituencies will be more critical of the president elect and all his men. What does this have to do with the axis Rome→America? I don't know and I don't really care. What I do know is that the instant the majority of American citizens come close to realize that their well being an moral stature is not dependent on the domination exerted upon the rest of the world, then the US will be grand by itself.
By the way,...Richard, please allow me to quote one of your lines, with which I couldn't agree more "Demtri's post was better than the article."

The U.S. will likely return to the pragmatic Realism that defined the nation's foreign policy under Presidents ranging from Truman to Reagan. The neoconservative school of foreign policy has been discredited.

Neoconservatives asserted one of the Military's missions was to expand the sphere of democracy. Military power can protect democratic countries. It cannot create them. Democracies depend on political, economic, and legal institutions. Simple "regime change" or the mere holding of elections in the absence of such an institutional framework do not constitute democracy.

Neoconservatives believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union led to a "unipolar world." In that world, they saw the U.S. as having complete freedom to pursue unilateralist approaches to foreign policy. The experience in Iraq reveals that there are limits to power. It reaffirms the value of alliances.

Neoconservatives discounted the value of diplomacy. Charles Krauthammer famously declared that "moral suasion is a farce." Given the limits of force, diplomacy is an important tool for advancing a nation's foreign policy interests.

The hangover from the Neoconservative experiment has created a situation in which pragmatic Realism will regain preeminence in U.S. foreign policy. As a result, one will see leadership through persuasion, cooperation with allies, a focus on critical national interests, and attention to the balance of powers. Foreign policy will not seek to radically destabilize regions in a pursuit to build a new world. Emphasis will be placed on maintaining the kind of equilibrium in which countries can benefit from sustained robust economic growth and steadily improving living standards.

US Won Every Battle - Lost the War
It’s not just Iraq

We have now lost the most precious possession any nation – or for that matter any person – can have. We have lost ourselves, our spirit – yes – even our soul. America will never again be held by the world in such high esteem. The city on the hill.

You, dear reader, can at least salvage this. If you were born before 1985 you can brag that you lived through the American zenith. The highest reach of a bold dream. The brag isn’t much, but at least it’s something.

Perhaps, during the decades of the Cold War, we defined ourselves too much as the force holding back the dark threat of the Soviet Union. Since the full Soviet collapse as the 1990’s dawned we have been a power looking for a purpose. With eight years in office, if Bill Clinton had turned his considerable talent to the task things might be different. But he threw away his hopeful possibility on Lewinsky.

Now Bush/Cheney/Rove have turned us toward domination, pettiness and paranoia. The attacks in Spain and England haven’t changed their souls like we have changed ours. The tragic re-election of that group in 2004 notified the world that this great nation is now defined by our fears, not the hopes and dreams that have carried us for over two hundred years.

The nearly complete absence of statesmanship and vision in the crowd of 2008 presidential candidates sadly confirms this dark assessment.

“OH, SAY DOES THAT STAR SPANGLED BANNER YET WAVE,
O’RE THE LAND OF THE FREE AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE?”

No. Rather we are the spied on, the fearful, the xenophobic, the suspicious, the divided. We are trapped in voluntary terror at the behest of our leadership. In one sense, Bin Laden put in a nickel and is getting the Five Dollar Show.

"If America's worldwide ambitions crumble, we lose... what, exactly? Certainly not our borders. Like Great Britain, our 'empire' will crumble in the form of our provincial influence, not the actual loss of our nation." -

You lose California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas to Mexico and Alaska to Russia. Hawaii and Puerto Rico will declare independence. Native Americans will expand territory of reservation land and claim full sovereignty. The rest of American population will establish ethnic enclaves as autonomous independent states.

As for Great Britain, they already lost their colonies.

RORY says, "Our foreign aid alone is larger than that of the next 10 countries COMBINED."

For the truth, check this: http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-doners-of-foreigner-aid-map.html

In response to Pefley's lovely comment, "America has been imperializing for a very long time, but never more egregiously or on such a scale as when she invaded and destroyed an unoffending independant entity called the Confederate States."

Aside from being entirely off-topic,I want to note it truly is a shame that the Union had to invade the Confederate states. Imagine how much better our economy could be if we weren't propping up all those backward states.

"Karl Johan Andersen:
Unfortunantly, your comments concerning Rome are plain and simple false. Rome fell not because of a degraded moral system, but because of selling its army out to invading Goths. Towards the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century AD, hordes of Mongols moved east, pushing the once dormant Visi-Goths, Ostro-Goths and other Gothis communities from there modern day Polish/Russian homes into Roman land. Unable to cope with this new threat (
due to numerous problems, including the debasement and utter destruction of their coinage, and the inability of leading pro-consuls and pro-aediles to lead armies as they did not have imperium, which only the Emperor himself posessed), Rome was forced to allow the Goths to settle within Roman land, and in return fight for Rome. Soon, the entire Roman army was not Roman, but merely Gothic and other barbarian mercenary troops (very similar to the Cartharginians, who the Romans had conquered nearly a century before). Thus, when, in 453 AD, Alaric the Great sacked Rome for the first time, it was not an invading army that betook Rome, but it was in fact the Roman army itself (or what had become of it) that sacked Rome. Alaric the Great was a Roman general himself!"

Watch out for Pentagon hired mercenary contractors e.g. Blackwater corporate private army come home to roost. Our volunteer army is no match to corporate private army.

Comparing America to Rome is a little dramatic, isn't it? After all, Iraq isn't annexed to the US, nor is Afghanistan, North Korea, or Germany. The Roman model wouldn't have left these nations to self-governance.

Also interesting is each nation's rate of expansion: America's was largely negotiated through business deals (e.g., Louisiana Purchase, Manhattan Island). Rome's, on the other hand, was hard-fought, with constant border challenges over centuries from a litany of barbarian tribes and native civilizations. The two aren't exactly congruous, even taking Native Americans into account.

Making these two even less congruous is America's relatively inclusive immigration policy. One of the biggest differences between America and Rome is their attitudes towards immigration. Rome's constant border challenges are believed to have been preventable, had some immigration policy been in effect. Even with the illegal alien debate in this country, our nation is infinitely more inclusive than Rome was.

Another disparity is the question of what is at risk in losing the 'American Empire.' When Rome fell, there were nearby parties with an actve interest in claiming the dilapidated Roman territory... goths, visigoths, lombardis, etc.

If America's worldwide ambitions crumble, we lose... what, exactly? Certainly not our borders. Like Great Britain, our 'empire' will crumble in the form of our provincial influence, not the actual loss of our nation.

If any nation in recent history reminds me of Rome, it is the elephant in the room that Ms. Andoni conveniently neglected: the USSR. Think about it: A military conquest-assembled block of tributary states that are no longer sovereign, a government in which a small number of elites are more 'equal' than everyone else, all leading up to an unquestionable leader whose absolute authority is intended to take the place of God... sounds pretty imperial to me. Especially since they actually lost the borders and soveriegnty of their state.

But I guess people see in Rome, and America, what they want to. If it's convenient for their political position to see America as the worst parts of Rome, then nothing, not even the ink of the constitution, can dissuade them.

You can argue all day long the many ways that America and historical Rome are similar or not. Ms. Andoni's point remains, however:

"Empires all reach a point where aggression, plunder and subversion become an unquestioned entitlement, an inherent prerogative fed by self-declared and self-serving claims to moral superiority."

This is the litmus test Ms. Andoni is asking us to apply to the USA today. Does this or does this not describe America in the 21st century? Sounds awfully close to me.

Yes America is Rome or Sparta for that matter. There is unquestioned acceptance of military action and American exceptionlism. More Americans should take a trip to somewhere in another part of the world to see that our advantages and values are relative and not absolutely superior in any sense. The government has our money and people fighting for objectives that no one even knows are for what purpose. Meanwhile we slouch to work on inadequate roads, have inadequate airports, have decrepit city schools. Hello, wake up, before we destroy our environment and ourselves by not coping.

JP, your putting so much careful thought into your questions is bound to provoke nitpickers like me. Please allow me to edify just one point you rightly sense is fundamental to the debate. As you say, we are spending more in Iraq than we can expect in return in oil revenues. But far from proving our good intentions, as you imply, it merely proves the willingness of our Commander-in-chief to spend our nation's treasure, not to mention the lives, limbs, and health of children not his own, in an endeavor that has enriched his friends, i.e those who contributed to his campaign who were hired exclusively for federal Iraq-related work. Our war in Iraq has made Cheney, with $12 million in Halliburton stock options, rich beyond his limited imagination. More to your point about oil is the fact that should the Maliki gov't sign off finally on 30-yr oil leases long ago prepared by the Bushies for oil to be taken out of Iraq in return for what we tax payers are likely to pay for, while taking nothing from the profits of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and BP, who have been exclusively promised those leases by Bush, then they too shall gain enormously at the expense of the American taxpayer. Shall we at least enjoy lower prices at the pump or in heating our homes? If history is any precedent, the answer is no, the price we pay will only go higher.

George Lucas warned us about Empire.

http://scorpionbowl.blogspot.com/2007/05/george-lucas-american-orwell.html

Thank You (US Army Officer who served in Iraq). Not only are you almost 100% bang-on, you may be the only person that makes complete sense on this blog. Soldiers are alway the first to learn the truth, don't you think? The drum beating civvie Yahoos never do. Well Heck it ain't their Butt getting fired at. History and the knowledge off (perhaps language too) might (??) have avoided this Iraqi present MESS-UP. The history and methods (ancient military customs) taught by Cyrus through Alexander to their victorious forces (in those days)of treating the vanquished magnanimously with honour. Even incorperating the defeated armies into the victorious one, thus leaving the defeated with their national PRIDE still intact. Might be a few books Paul Bremmer missed reading on how to WIN the HEARTS and MINDS of Iraqis. Like Old Tom our local BEAR HUNTER always says: "You can catch more bear with HONEY, than you can with VINEGAR" --Maybe somebody in HIGH OFFICE (while we are on the subject off history) could refresh themselves on the recent Russo/Afghan conflict back in the 1980's. Seek the reason we partnered with "THE TERRORIST" Osama back then. Then search for the reason for that partnership desolving into complete DISASTER (thereafter) by the early 1990's. Methinks; we may have been BSed an awful lot by our own. I'm glad you are home safe Sir. God Bless You and THANKS for your service. May I as a lowly (former) Canadian L/Cpl raise my right arm in SALUTE to you Sir.--Good Bye, Good Health, Good Life.-- Hap Stokes

Is America like ancient Rome? Well, in some ways all
dominant powers wind up making the same mistakes and
committing similar atrocities. Now, on this middle
east blame game, my take is that Americans were all too happy to say nothing regarding the personal lives of the leaders of the oil producing countries in the Gulf. No matter how many wives, Mercedes, private jets, palaces, and cousins on the payroll,
that the Grand Emirs wanted, it was ok, as long as the oil flowed freely and the price was reasonable.
9/11 seemed to prove that the, not so grand bargain,
was in danger of falling apart. Instead of rising up against the Saudis, Al-Qaeda struck their greatest
benefactor and the ensuing chaos has proved to be
beneficial to no one but Al-Qaeda. Getting back to
the Rome analogy, one that might be more apt is
the Soviet Union, who stubbornly refused to leave
Afghanistan until their army was broken and, with
the repercussions came the break up their country.

Is America like ancient Rome? Well, in some ways all
dominant powers wind up making the same mistakes and
committing similar atrocities. Now, on this middle
east blame game, my take is that Americans were all too happy to say nothing regarding the personal lives of the leaders of the oil producing countries in the Gulf. No matter how many wives, Mercedes, private jets, palaces, and cousins on the payroll,
that the Grand Emirs wanted, it was ok, as long as the oil flowed freely and the price was reasonable.
9/11 seemed to prove that the, not so grand bargain,
was in danger of falling apart. Instead of rising up against the Saudis, Al-Qaeda struck their greatest
benefactor and the ensuing chaos has proved to be
beneficial to no one but Al-Qaeda. Getting back to
the Rome analogy, one that might be more apt is
the Soviet Union, who stubbornly refused to leave
Afghanistan until their army was broken and, with
the repercussions came the break up their country.

This is a facile, meandering piece that displays a significant lack of understanding of both Rome and America. The author relies on vast and unsubstantiated assumptions rather than attempting to confront the considerable complexities of the comparison.

Where is this American Empire? What are its boundaries, and how did they come into being? What traits identify it as an empire? What ills did it cause, and what goood? How complicit were its enemies in its creation?

The author's expressed knowledge of Rome is limited to the facts that it had slaves, was not a democracy, and was cruel. Of what value is this information without context and direct comparison? The differences between Rome and America are enormous.

For what it's worth, I think the Iraq invasion was political, military, and moral idiocy. It resulted from an unusually well organized conservative movement granted a largely free hand by the murderous actions of some Islamic madmen. It's momentary, an aberration. To conflate this with empire, and in particular with an empire that occupied and taxed foreign lands for centuries, is ludicrous.

Robert of Los angeles :
quoting "its YOUR oil lanes that are being kept open by our ARMS."
Anyone with the least amount of intelligence and common sense would tell you that it is your ARMS there for the single purpose of looting the three letter word you mentioned.
Quoting "but TIRED of US fighting YOUR battles!"
Excuse me, the only fightings you have done were proxy fights to solely benefit your real Motherland.
I usually do not compromise myself by acknowledging ones like you however I sincerely believe anyone coming, no offense intended, out of sewer line would have utilized this space more efficiently than you have.
Having said that, I must add your frustration is not totally unwarrented. the American people are slowly awakening and reclaiming their country back.

Geez guys...

I mean come on ladies and gentlemen, this is a public forum where the best way to show those keen intellects burning inside your heads is to be civil and to quietly take satisfaction in proving your point beyond any doubt. There's almost always Springer reruns on if all you really care to do is stamp and shout! No more condescension, no more "idiot" this, "moron" that, no more swearing, please... the highest and most transcendent level of thought and comprehension of political architecture will come to you when you are at your calmest. I know how easy it is to get angry when someone railroads your points (I've done debate before) but trust me, it doesn't just get you nowhere fast... it gets you in the censorship slammer. Now THAT'S nowhere.

Have fun. Enjoy your Friday, it's a nice one.

This is a really great forum with some very interesting posts. Some with well written arguments and of course many others that are more rants than substantial arguments with no premises to support any well conceived conclusion. So...lets ask ourselves the question here once again: Is America the modern equivalent of Rome and doomed to repeat history?

As a proud American and veteran of two wars I find this a very perplexing and difficult notion to debate. If we consider America an empire then the answer is yes, America will fall. History has taught us that what goes up must come down and since empires by their inherent nature are thought to grow and expand upon themselves gives credence to this argument.

On the other hand, what if America doesn't fit so neatly into the category of "Empire"? Then the question is still, will she fall? I don't believe so and many of you here without even knowing it have given strong support of this assessment. America is by no means perfect, but what she is, is fluid and progressive. Our government and culture by creation gives rise to change and reform. Often this change is slow, however if you look forward to the next election and the strong possibility of a Black or Female President who both oppose the war, you'll see that change does occur. Even Congress passes reform from time-to-time. So by this argument if she isn’t an empire and allows slow and methodical reform through debate and democratic elections then no, she will not fall. This doesn’t mean she has to be the world’s police force though.

Another focus in this forum seems to be the United States policies in the Middle East. The truth to this debacle is that despite the false pretensions that lead us to war in Iraq—nothing more than a family vendetta to correct the perceived mistake of not over throwing Saddam the first time in 91. Most agree that the Iraqi people did want us to over throw Saddam in 91 but we pulled out after UN and world pressure, which left Saddam free to massacre the Kurds and Shiites who revolted against him. Hence they and the rest of the region have never regained trust. Same issue in Lebanon in the 60's— we need to somehow reconcile an age long cultural divide stemming from the early Crusades. Truth is Eastern and Western Cultures are so strikingly different that it has given rise to religious opportunists like G. W. Bush and Osama—that’s right, they are both extreme and fundamental—They both have become distorted in their fundamental religious beliefs and used their influence to mislead others allowing them to pursue their own religious objectives. This has gotten us nowhere. What I’m saying is, America needs to re-live the notion of separation of church and state, and public involvement in political debate (more voter turnout), while the eastern cultures need to focus more on western tolerance and freedom of debate and information. Until we can bridge the cultural divide we’ll continue this debate. As far as American and her demise? Well, if we curb the current military and prison industrial complexes then we’ll continue on thriving.

Is America like ancient Rome? Well, in some ways all
dominant powers wind up making the same mistakes and
committing similar atrocities. Now, on this middle
east blame game, my take is that Americans were all too happy to say nothing regarding the personal lives of the leaders of the oil producing countries in the Gulf. No matter how many wives, Mercedes, private jets, palaces, and cousins on the payroll,
that the Grand Emirs wanted, it was ok, as long as the oil flowed freely and the price was reasonable.
9/11 seemed to prove that the, not so grand bargain,
was in danger of falling apart. Instead of rising up against the Saudis, Al-Qaeda struck their greatest
benefactor and the ensuing chaos has proved to be
beneficial to no one but Al-Qaeda. Getting back to
the Rome analogy, one that might be more apt is
the Soviet Union, who stubbornly refused to leave
Afghanistan until their army was broken and, with
the repercussions came the break up their country.

"Great Empires and little Minds Go Ill Together."

The issue is the American Empire under Emperor Dick Cheney, or was it clueless GWB.

It is hubris that led the U.S. into its current debacle in Iraq. It was assumed that Iraqis would succumb in awe (remember "shock and awe" and "mission accomplished"?) at the sight of overwhelming American power, and then be enticed by the golden arches, mouse ears and other wares of global consumer capitalism.
Many Americans think that they have a right--nay, a mandate--to intervene in other regions of the world because they deem themselves to be the "beacon of light" in an otherwise corrupt and flawed world. This is a mythology that harkens back to the earliest days of the nation.
It is the mythology of benign US power that drives and fuels this illusion. Somehow, it is argued by many neoconservatives, US hegemony is different because America wields its power with a light touch (tell that to the Iraqis who have felt the light touch of a 500 lb. jdam dropped on their home)and in support of a global common good. It is self-interest that drives US actions. Sometimes those interests coincide with the global common good, sometimes they don´t.
All of this is of course ideologically driven discourse that is used by the powerful--who have vested interests in Iraq´s resources and strategic location--to convince ordinary Americans to support dubious adventures in places like Iraq.
Robert of Los Angeles exemplifies this flawed logic: "we came to save you from your own degenerate culture and ways" is his basic argument. Moreover, he points out that we were attacked (which conveniently overlooks the fact that Iraq is not the country that attacked the US).
The trouble is, Iraqis have seen empire before--the British used the same idiom of liberation when they invaded and sought to colonize Iraq in 1917. Therefore, the Iraqis know the feel, the taste, and the smell of empire. What refrain was it that GW Bush had so much trouble uttering...fool me once...

Robert of Los Angeles:

You and your idiot friends are what keeps Osama bin Forgotten going. You have no understanding of current events, of the modern Middle East, or of its history. Terror? Israel brought mass terror to the region when it ethnically cleansed Palestine of its indigenous inhabitants. The Palestinians have a very long way to go before match Israel's record of terrorism. But they understand from Israel's example that terrorism works. Tell me, little Mr. I Got a Bigger You Know What Than Anyone Else, where is your condemnation of that wave of terror?

And little Mr. I Wish I Had a Brain, where is your condemnation of our support for these Arab dictators? Where were you, Mr. I Don't Need Facts, when your boy Rummy sold WMD to Saddam to gas the Kurds?

Finally, little Mr. I So Wish I Was Knew Anything, you're 2 strikes down at having any idea of what's happening. As you and your No Brain friends keep pouring gasoline on the fire, I'm sure you won't complain when you get burned. Problem is, little Mr. I Am Totally Lacking in Grey Matter, the rest of us will get burned, too.

Don't like my smart aleck tone? Too bad, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.

Unfortunantly, your comments concerning Rome are plain and simple false. Rome fell not because of a degraded moral system, but because of selling its army out to invading Goths. Towards the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century AD, hordes of Mongols moved east, pushing the once dormant Visi-Goths, Ostro-Goths and other Gothis communities from there modern day Polish/Russian homes into Roman land. Unable to cope with this new threat (
due to numerous problems, including the debasement and utter destruction of their coinage, and the inability of leading pro-consuls and pro-aediles to lead armies as they did not have imperium, which only the Emperor himself posessed), Rome was forced to allow the Goths to settle within Roman land, and in return fight for Rome. Soon, the entire Roman army was not Roman, but merely Gothic and other barbarian mercenary troops (very similar to the Cartharginians, who the Romans had conquered nearly a century before). Thus, when, in 453 AD, Alaric the Great sacked Rome for the first time, it was not an invading army that betook Rome, but it was in fact the Roman army itself (or what had become of it) that sacked Rome. Alaric the Great was a Roman general himself!

Thus, with this adressed, I would suggest that you read and learn history before you try and comment on American policy. Obviously the Post would show such obviously ignorant comments due to its far-left leaning columnists and agenda. America is no Rome. America is the greatest country the world has ever seen and is merely trying defend itself from radical Islam.

The only similarity between Rome and America is the level of barbarity of its enemies: the Goths, and Radical Islam.

Robert (of Wake Forest, N.C.):
It is staggering, but typical of a Post blog spot, to see such self loathing of this country.
Real Americans who work for a living and who dare to wear a uniform know the truth and know the lies you peddle. You are the Terrorists Best Friends.

Dear Robert of N.C.;

We feel for this pain, this anger you carry. Your faith in America must be small if it is so easily upset. Yes, some feel superior when they criticize. But don't you agree, that love of country requires that we look at out land and people honestly? That if we see a blemish, we don't ignore it but try to repair it?

I am always disturbed when someone says "Real Americans". It tells me that you feel surrounded by enemies, by neighbors and citizens who don't share your values and opinions. It tells me you see a country divided by our differences, not a country strengthened by our diversity and given the liberty to express ourselves. Yet what patriot does not celebrate our national motto, "E Pluribus Unum"? It worries me that if your commitment to our liberty, to our diversity in unity, is weak, then our nation is weak.

The best friend of the terrorist is fear. It is why he or she kills, to instill fear. When you fear and hate your neighbors, the terrorist is happy. Refuse to fear, Robert; refuse to hate.

ALL ROADS LEAD WHERE?

The old analogy of America as some facet of the Roman Empire nee Republic have been around since the days of McKinley when we were off to gather new territories for our country.

Since then, people have referred to America as Rome because of its decadence (1960s and 1970s) and now power which may or may not be unchecked.

The only real thing we inherited from Rome is their love and respect for the Law and the duties of a Roman citizen (read Cicero's book "On Duties and you will immediately recognize a great deal of the American approach to life.

Also, there is more to Roman history than the fact that it was an empire. The British had an Empire, so did the Spanish, the French, the Chinese, the Japanese, etc etc etc. And most people like the Roman analog becuase it sounds good.

"By GOD, we're going the way of the Romans because of ___________!" Fill in the blank.

Rome which became Byzantium lasted from 750 bc until 1453 ad. We're barely a click in that long of a period of time.

If one is looking for an analogy, I would suggest the British Empire, which was dependent on its colonies (we have none to speak of and Iraq does not qualify as one) to buy its goods. Hence when India was "freed", it became more socialist because it saw the necessity of developing its own industries. And when that happened, and its old colonies could/would no longer but its produce, England ceased to be an Empire and set its colonies free, or abandoned them to their fate, depending on your point of view.

Meanwhile, Americans buy more stuff from other people than anyone in history. We also produce more stuff. And having lost the manufacturing race, which depends on cheap labor, we must jump forth into new technologies if we are to keep our edge.

Otherwise, we will become a backwater and surpassed in intellect by the Indians and in production capacity by the Chinese.

So let's leave Rome to the past, it has nothing to teach us, scientifically, morally, culturally, or economically.

Finally, remember that if you read your Gibbon, the height of the Empire was around 200 AD with Marcus Antonius as its last representative. AND a mere 1200 years later it fell - to the Ottoman Turks. So one could argue that the Christians found a perfectly good Empire and ran it into the ground.

But could never happen here, could it.

Americans are in fact questioning their right to dominate as you put it. That is the reason why the overwhelming majority of us want out of Iraq.

One thing that sets America apart from any other super-power in History is that America is a country that was built on, and became powerful through, those who came by their own initiative. The only exception being the African population that was brought over on slave ships. Unlike Rome, America did not become powerful through war, but through it's ideals.

I am unhappy with the direction America is going right now, like you, but unlike you I know we are not Rome, and I expect better from us policy wise.

Ms. Andoni writes: "But if we read well into the dominant American discourse -- with the exception of the anti-war movement -- there is no questioning of imperial notions and goals. The talk is all about whether America can succeed or not; the main point is whether America is winning or losing. There is little discussion in the establishment about whether and why America is entitled to win and to dominate."

Dear Ms. Adnoni:
I think the above criticism is a bit unfair. During the winter 2002/2003, the American public and media certainly failed to question our elected leaders' rush into Iraq, but at this point most Americans see the invasion as a mistake and favor withdrawing American troops. In other words, the American public is currently engaged in a serious reconsideration of the "imperial notions and goals" of the four years ago. This discussion is not limited to a small anti-war movement; it is widespread.

The debate in America is about when and how to leave without creating a power vacuum. One of the few ways America could do even more damage is to allow a civil war to occur in our wake.

Americanism based on "We the people ..." and "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,..."

And when that new Government will be instituted ?

Never with this "occupied-territory" Washington.

In re specific quotes in the essay:

"But the empire has been subverting those institutions, international law and its own declared values to ensure its hold on power and continue its expansion."

Q1: Would you say that America "subverts" these institutions any more than any of the great powers? If so, is your opinion based on an analysis? If not, would you please make a more contextually sophisticated argument that accounts for great nation behavior?

Q2: Please be explicit in your statements "hold on power" and "continue its expansion." Without specific examples, it's hard to know what "power" and "expansion" you are talking about.

"But if we read well into the dominant American discourse -- with the exception of the anti-war movement -- there is no questioning of imperial notions and goals. The talk is all about whether America can succeed or not; the main point is whether America is winning or losing. There is little discussion in the establishment about whether and why America is entitled to win and to dominate."

Q3: Could the same be said of any nation ensconsed in a war? The only nation I know of in the history of the world that has let public opinion sway sentiment the conduct of war are those associated with Western ideals.

Q4: Have you conducted an analysis to compare what typical political sentiments are made by countries at ware during conflicts to support that the U.S. rhetoric is anything but reflexive of a nation wanting to win. (We had the discussion of the whether we should be at war before it happened. And yes, it was a shambles. But that does not belie the point that it did occur). If so, please cite this source and the conclusions of this analysis.

Point of contention: Anti-war movement is pretty strong right now.

"Empires all reach a point where aggression, plunder and subversion become an unquestioned entitlement, an inherent prerogative fed by self-declared and self-serving claims to moral superiority. The American empire is not original in embedding itself in the self-serving morality of "taming the savages;" old Rome needed no high-tech computers or laser-guided weapons to justify its conquests and its cruelties."

Q5: Please explain how the U.S. is "plundering" Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, we have no economic self-interest. In Iraq, we are spending far more money than Iraq would ever produce through oil, even if all its oil revenues went to the U.S. for several decades.

Q6: Wouldn't it be better that if we were particularly bent on cynically "taming the savages" that we INCREASE the sectarian struggle between the groups WITHOUT our troops in harm's way, and then wait for the victor to consolidate power before we overthrew them?

Q7: Please be explicit in your term "cruelties" because I would like to differentiate between what you mean as "Imperial" cruelties and cruelties of, say, kidnapping innocent people of differing ethnic groups, torturing them, and decapitating them.

"In the end, empires share the same imperative of power."

Q8: Don't you think this is somewhat of a loaded statement? Don't we all have the same "imperative to power?" Read Nietzche and please get back to me as to how the will to power coincides with the U.S. allowing itself to lose face by not winning this war, i.e. by not engaging in all means and tactics necessary. If the United States had truly shunned all of its values, do you not think that the government would engage in some rather harsh tactics to bring these areas to heel? Come on, give the U.S. a little credit. After all, Rome did engage in quite harsh tactics. But so have other countries in the past 100 years that put current U.S. tactics to shame.

Only a few times in history that a nation, or a people from a well defined region, truly swept around the world in grand styles, conquering and dominating it, so much so that whether you fear it or not, whether you agree with it or not, you stand firmly to observe its conquests and domination.

And I'm not talking about small, regional conquests of less than 2,500 or so miles in radius from their point of origins. I'm talking about conquests and domination that reached at least half way around the world, and permanently altered the trajectories of history for millions of people, for generations.

The Greeks (e.g., Alexander the Great, et al) didn't quite do it, but, yes, the Romans did it, shortly after the Greeks reached their height, especially in science and mathematics.

[Alexander's few years of meander into the various territories, eve as far as India, didn't count because it's too small in scope in complete and sustained military domination. Nor did Napoleon's similar wonderlust counted.]

France and Spain didn't quite do it, even if they and half a dozen or so other Europeans (e.g., Belgium, Germany, Italy, Portuga, the Dutch, etc.) were everywhere England was.

But, yes, England did it.

Genghis Khan also did it, too.

(Sorry, Hitler didn't quite do it, either, although he did, very briefly broke out far into both western and eastern Europe, as well as in northern Africa. Likewise, "Imperial Japan" didn't quite do it, either, although in terms of sheer square kilometers of coverage, it did reach an area much greater than, say, Genghis Khan. Japan's activities were even less sustained and less completely dominating than, say, Alexander the Great's various "successful" military campaigns in the Mediterranian and central Middle East regions.)

The last and present undisputed military mighty that has conquered and has sustained far-flung regions of the world and has maintained military posts for years on end is, of course, the United States of America...

Now, there are many silly folks who blah, blah, blah nonsense, justifying our domination, saying it ain't so because they say so, blah, blah, and more blah. But the fact of the matter is, we are one of the VERY FEW people/civilizations of the world, throughout history, who have had our foot prints clearly stamped on many far-flung regions of the world, in a sustained way.

So, in short, the true "Rome's" of history are:

(1) The Romans
(2) Genghis Khan
(3) Great Britain
(4) The United States of America

These and only these are the "Rome's" of their times.

Some good comments.

Now a lot of empire is about wealth. The old model, prevailing in the Middle East (or what I like to call the navel of the world) long before Rome, was you get wealth by conquering your neighbors and exacting tribute. Greed begets greed and over time the periphery becomes more distant and extended, more expensive to defend. And the natives are figuring out ways to resist short of facing your armies. So empire becomes more expensive - raise taxes. But the ruling class has become a wealthy oligarchy, so they don't get taxed - the burdens fall more and more on the middle class and poor. Eventually the burden becomes to great, and the empire collapses. Gibbon concluded that the fall of Rome was the result of immoderate greatness.

Britain innovated in the business of Empire. They used divide and rule to set ethnic groups against one another instead of the Brits, and set up client kings who carried a whiff of legitimacy and the burden of governing in return for a little side payment. But the natives learned nationalism from the Brits and French (or, as Vietnam, had the idea from long before), and the costs of empire came to outweigh the benefits. Most of the European colonial powers were smart enough to see the handwriting on the wall and withdraw before the collapse would topple their own governments.

The US innovation is to realize that if you can get everyone to sign onto the same trade agreements, open their markets to our corporations, and enforce our idea of property rights, you can do without direct conquest and rule. The investor class can suck wealth out of the rest of the world through profits, not tribute. Still, the natives do get restless, so we have to maintain a military big enough to clobber them whenever a banana republic threatens to assert itself.

Bosnia was an aberation, let's face it. We intervened someplace where we didn't have a direct economic interest. The Marshall Plan wasn't - it kick-started trade at a point where the US had over 50% of the world's industrial capacity and desperately needed new markets, and wanted to keep Europe from going Communist.

Iraq is another aberation - not in the sense that is not about economic interests; whether you call it blood for oil or energy security for the world, there is a clear economic interest. The aberation is that idiot son George never learned the lesson that we avoid direct conquest and the costs of empire.

This thing can go two ways. If we follow the neocons' policy of trying to establish a permanent, unchallengable hegemony over the rest of the world, you can bet those pesky natives are going to get real restless and come up with a thousand and one ways to resist. Enough mosquito bites can kill a person, and China and Russia are damned big skeeters. The political and military imperatives of ruling an empire will erode our democracy. Empire destroyed the Roman Republic, and Cheney is doing his best to see that neocon empire destroys ours. The costs of empire will damage our economy and the support of the average taxpayer.

The other path is that we the people reject the false seductions of empire, pull back our troops, and work harder to establish a multilateral security regime which will protect our vital interests but share the decision making and the costs.

The first path leads to brief glory and innevitable collapse, accompanied by much individual pain and suffering. ("you haven't an arm, you haven't a leg, Johhny I hardly knew you") The second path shows that we have learned from history and that we are pursuing a sustainable world order with liberty and justice for all. Empire brings neither liberty nor justice.

Well Put JP,

Nice to see someone can use verifiable facts to back up their assertions. A lot of people here don't seem able to do that. Note the last guy blaming the United States for the creation of Israel when actually Britain's haphazard abandonment of British Mandate Palestine when a two state solution was rejected by the Arabs in the U.N. has much more to do with it. Sure we recognized the new country but hardly the same as throwing people out of their homes. I guess its easier to make abstract and non-fact based claims (like this al-jazeera woman) than examine the successes and shortcomings of U.S. foreign policy current and historical.

John's reply to my reply: I don't disagree with you that America does a lot of good in the world. However, the British thought themselves to be really special as well. They "allowed" (I love that word) local rule as well. This local rule is usually allowed because it's too expensive to do it yourself. My objection is to the notion of American Exceptionalism. The old British Empire did some good things. They "civilized" large areas of the planet and invented soccer. The difference between Britain and America is that the British knew they had an empire and were proud of it. Whereas America, for reasons I don't fully understand, is in denial. The fact remains: An empire is an empire and they all behave more or less in the same way. Blame it on human nature John, but that's the way it is.

John:

First of all, you prove your stupidity with statements like, "We strip search more old ladies at airports than 20-yr olds called Mohammed." There are MILLIONS of "white" muslims out there, who would surely be used in terrorist attacks if those in charge of those attacks knew that these types of people wouldn't be searched. It's the random act that provides security. The "20-yr olds called Mohammed" who we suspect of being terrorists, shouldn't have gotten to the airport in the 1st place.

Secondly, it is the act of imposing our will on other people that has gotten us into this conflict to begin with. Who supported Bin Laden and the other mujaheedin in Afghanistan against the Russians, sir??? Who provided them with tactics and the Tora Bora compound??? Who sold Saddam chemical weapons after the Iranians deposed "OUR" shaw??? Who threw the Palestinians from there homes in favor of the Jews??? THESE ARE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE CAUSED THREW OUR MEDDLESOME POLICIES OF INVOLVEMENT, MOST OF WHICH WERE PERPETUATED WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Miss Andoni's analysis is correct. It is possible that the USA already passed her largest power. While in Military might she is top dog [as long as Russia or China does not respond with A weapon] on the economic front she has already started the steep decline. In the 1980 the USA was the World's banker and good producer. Now the Bankers are China, Japan, EU, Russia and Opec [the last notwithstanding of buying to them useles high tech USA war material] njad lot of production was shipped off shore.

But the fall of the empire is not only based on military and or economic power, it is based on cultural values. This where the USA has really lost ground, for WE THE PEOPLE underwrote the slow destruction of the Constitutional Compact over the years. From the failure to stop this decline sprung forth the notion that international law is a surplus and unworthy to subscribe to. Then the next step is to ascertation that the law of the land does not apply to the ruling Elite [Libby].

While the War in Iraq and Afganistan [we do not count bodies] greatly diminished the stature of the USA in the Muslim world, this event only put the exclamation mark on the decline of influence by USA.

The decline will be more noticable if the world at large fails to underwrite the USA deficit/payment balance [with the consequent collapse of the private equity industrty]. The added bonus is the foreseeable effect of global warming, which will restrain the whole world, but be most felt in the USA for she has the highest consumption at this time.

Excuse me? We loathe self-examination? The very fact that this website asked the question contradicts your assertion...what do you think has been the prominently implied theme in the news for, oh say, the past 5 years?! We question ourselves regularly. Maybe the president doesn't, but to imply that Americans as a group don't is ludicrous. And besides, one shouldn't be paralyzed into inaction by one's self-examination, as appears to be the case in Europe.

If you think that we are anything like the Rome of Gaul or of Persia or of Germania, then you and I must not be looking at the same set of facts. What puppet governments have we put up in major industrial and population areas throughout the world? Really, only the Middle East and Southeast Asia. (Areas, I might note, that are among the last bastions of autocratic rule on the planet. They also coincide with our economic and national self-interest, I know.) One can argue that we installed or have supported sympathetic governments in, say, Egypt or Iran, but how on Earth does this even come close in comparison to Rome imposing a prelate or puppet king that answers to Caesar with tribute? While we may be hegemonic in scope, what conceivable check did Rome have on its power after the fall of Carthage and the Persian empire? How do we "control" European politics? What control do we have on Russia? In what parallel Roman world did they have to contend with a rising China or small countries developing weapons that could inflict damage on a global scale?

And if the Rome-U.S. analogy applies, then what would the fall of the U.S. look like? The sacking of New York or D.C.? A nuclear bomb blowing up the Pentagon? No...if and when the U.S. loses its hegemonic status, it will be more like Great Britain. (Anybody in this forum trying to make a convincing argument that Victorian GB was analogous to the Roman empire?)

You may think that by the above comments that I am an American apologist. I am not. The U.S. has problems of overreaching. It has become too unilateral in its decision-making. It has major inconsistencies in its foreign policy. It has transparency issues and has possibly violated humanitarian rights. American actions have not always lived up to its soaring rhetoric. All facts. But let's keep every thing in context. We are not invading countries left and right. The U.S. is not the most heinous perpetrator of human rights and international law in the last 100 years, by far...Leaps and bounds. We don't have a horse as a Senator (I guess one may make the argument).

As far as I am concerned, anybody that makes an honest comparison of the Roman Empire to the United States must concur that the world of one is so vastly different from the world of the other that any analogies or sylogisms drawn are oblique at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

It's very interesting how many of the same arguments made in support of our "moral" obligation to spread "democracy" are very similiar to the arguments made to justify slavery in America. The Bible was often cited as authority for the right to enslave Africans when the real motivation was for the cheap labor needed to turn this country from frontier into economic, industrialized world superpower.

The religious wright (I put the "w" in front because there is nothing right about them) is leading the charge to frame what is essentially a self-serving quest to dominate another country's/regions resource, as a holy war that all self-respecting Christians/American's should support. This adminstration has been very effective at exploiting this fear and prejudice of another religion, namely, Islam. But, in both instances, the underlying motivation is greed! This country is no longer ran by the people, for the people. It is ran by multi-national corporations in the name of maximizing profits. Those who really call the shots use individual prejudices to motivate the masses to follow their economic agenda.

The true unchecked power in this country rests with the multi national corporations that exert undue influence on this country's domestic and foreign policy. If we continue to allow them to shape our policy without regard for what is in the best long term interest of all for American citizens, we will surely meet the same fate as the Roman Empire.

I've always found the comparisons between the U.S. and Rome laughable. For starters

-Our system of government is a republic and we do not have a dictator for life as did the Romans (as an empire).

-We do not have a crisis of disparity in wealth as did the Romans (as an empire) usually attributed to the second punic war.

-We do not have a demographic crisis (no matter what people say about immigration from Latin America) as did the Romans with Germanic peoples.

-We have a relatively free society and because of this it would be hard to imagine some sort of populist uprising taking over the country.

-Though we have left military outposts in countries we have fought they are fully independent of us (Germany, Japan, South Korea, witness U.S. troops being kicked out of Kyrgystan)

One could go on and on. Thats not to say that there isn't anything empire-like about our continuing efforts to create new capitalist economies in which the U.S. can profit, but comparing the U.S. to Rome is something people who don't know much about history say to sound intelligent.

I think that America is Rome, to a point. Even Roman leaders, however, would not venture into territory without gains for Rome in mind. The US Empire is in many ways different than Rome, as it is in a different era. I don't even know if, at this point, the US is truly a democracy, any more. It is a weird hybrid, fairly different than the vision of our Founding Fathers.

Unlike Rome, the US is stable at home, and has not benefitted from it's so-called conquests in Europe (ww2), with US still spending billions in Germany, Japan, still spending billions there, gave back Okinawa to the Japanese, and Korea (billions there too). The US set the Philippines adrift after WW2, much to the damage of the people who live there, as they have not benefitted from independence, as they would have with statehood-again, very un-Roman like.

In other words, Rome would not have been as stupid as the US is. The US has indeed become arrogant in it's federal over reaches, and is hurting itself badly. Thanks to a different world political environment, i don't see the US going the way of Rome, ultimately. The world economy ultimately is too intertwined for any country to fight another country, and of course, the US will not fall form within, like Rome did. Romans in Palestine did not travel to Rome too often, whereas Americans move from Atlanta to Los Angeles, almost at a whim. Pax Americana!

Re: Pauls critique of my assertion that American's meddle in the affairs of other countries for the good of those countries.

First of all, I would like to emphasise that my second point was in the context of the first, America no longer goes to war to conquer. When we militarily take over a country, it is always with the goal of eventually returning self rule to the people of that country.

You've argued that we have often supported corrupt regimes for our own selfish interests, ignoring the needs of the citizens affected. This is true but I see a difference between supporting a dictator and creating an empire. America always allows other nations to practice local rule.

Also, sometimes American influence does a lot of good, look at what was done in Europe and Japan after WWII or in Korea or Taiwan. Look at the fact that the U.N. did not fail like the Leage of Nations due to U.S. support and the U.S. will most likely resume helping the U.N. once we have a competant president once more. The only way America secures a nation in it's sphere of influence is by seriously helping it a la Marshal plan. The closest thing to an empire America can construct is by helping a nation become a thriving democracy which is perfectly able to disagree with us.

If the United States is an empire, it is the least effective empire in the history of empires.

What do we have to hang our hat on? What military conquests do we have that are our own that are worth crowing about? I can think of three.
Three in over 200 years of being around.
That ain't so hot.

Our ideals, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, are borrowed from France.

Our history is not one of dominance and expansion. We have beaten up on the little guys of the world militarily, politically and economically.

Granted, we did defeat the Soviet Union, but we compromised our values (those French Enlightenment values) in doing so and we failed miserably at consolidating our influence in the world after the Soviet Union's collapse. If there ever was a time for the USA to take the helm, it was the 90s. But we didn't. We dithered and ignored anything going on outside our country that didn't pop up on CNN.

Our role as a superpower is an economic, intellectual, and scientific one. Our politicos are reactive, not proactive while our businessmen and scientists are out there changing the world.
If we are anything like an empire it would have to be the Phonecians. Look 'em up.

The wheels will fall off what we have going sometime, perhaps even within our lifetimes. But it is questionable as to whether that will be a bad thing, or matter at all in the grand scheme of things. Really, we ain't so special.

The EU the largest economic power? according to the CIA factbook we still have the edge (13.13 trillion v. 13.06 trillion dollars) in GDP, and GDP per head ($44,000 v. $29,900), the measure of how well off your citizens are. Sure, England's economy is doing great, Germany is recovering, France might finally be turning it around, but the East Europe members are a disaster waiting to happen and the mediterrean economies have not been doing well for years. on top of that, NY still tops London as the most important financial center. In response to the other euro-centric points, europe (like the rest of the world) consumes american culture on a mass scale, so what if its the largest exporter, and as was posted above, the whole non-military spending issue is because theyre under the US umbrella. they would have to spend money on defense if they didnt have our massive military protecting them, much like so many other countries in the world.

Ahh, the old "America=Rome=Declining" saw. This baby never gets old, and is constantly rediscovered by new self-selected intellectuals much like a den of raccoons likes to pass a shiny bauble from paw to paw. Why, I remember hearing it back in the early 1980s when I was in grade school. A particularly political teacher I had (American History no less!) delighted in showing us graphs that "proved" American "civilization" was all but over and we all better switch back to a barter economy to prepare for the glory of worldwide Communism.

Newsflash: didn't happen then. Isn't happening now.

Despite so many Americans (and, of course, foreign nations who can't keep up on their own) who apparently would love the country to collapse back into isolationist mediocrity, the country just keeps galloping along. There are a couple of reasons for this, in no particular order: great schools, a solid core citizenry with a deep and abiding respect for representative democracy (you know who you are) and a zeal for invention and re-invention that has only grown since the country's birth. In the last decade alone, the advances in technology in this country have been simply astonishing. Particle drives on space craft. Invisibility. Methods of data transmission that utilize quantum mechanics to actually receive data BEFORE it is even sent. Look 'em up.

In the end, the world needs the US like never before. Can you possibly conceive of the enormity of good that the US does in the world every day? Our foreign aid alone is larger than that of the next 10 countries COMBINED. We spew huge amounts of life-saving medicines and vaccines to every corner of the earth. The US military everyone so maligns is cheered from the treetops of every major natural catastrophe the world over what with the rescue helicopters and gigantic hospital ships. Our films and culture penetrate into every nook and cranny of the planet such that Iranian teenagers run through the streets of Tehran with armfuls of CDs and have secret underground rock clubs with all the latest US music. The truth hurts.

The United States is more impressive than at any time in its history. If you teleported back in time 50 years to a streetcorner of NYC and told random passersby that in the magical year of 2007 people survive most cancers, speak to each other through cameras hooked to their computers, and you could go nonstop from D.C. to Toyko in 12 hours, they would toss you in a loony bin.

As far as I can tell, this desperate desire for the U.S. to decline as an "empire" (which it is unequivocally not) is a parallel offshoot of the whole "everybody gets a medal" mentality of today's metro-hippies. Hate to tell you, but some countries just are better than others. America is proof positive of the fact that if you treat a bunch of people with respect and freedom, they will amaze in their myriad creativities. Keep on rocking in the free world.

Americans, and particularly conservative Americans, are some of the most naive and gullible people on the planet, primarily because most Americans have no sense of the world outside of their own borders, except what Fox News decides to implant in their brains.

Al Franken made a very astute comment: conservatives have a relationship with the USA like a child has with their mommy. Mommy can do no wrong, and anyone who criticizes mommy is a bad person.

Robert of Los Angeles, you fit this image to a tee.

Great article Ms. Andoni. Cleared-eyed patriots can celebrate what's good about their country, as well as acknowledge what is wrong with it, and seek to make it better.

VYUN, my reasons for stressing what produced Washington and Jefferson may be too implicit, so let me add that had they come of age and into money and power in the domain of feudal Spain, whose reliance on the Church for justice was just one debilitating difference, then you and I would be Mexican as would they.

"But when it comes to talking about empires and power the Europeans are still thought of as individual, smaller powers like France or Britain. They're smart and they've learned not to waste their resources on militarism and empires abroad or trying to dominate the globe by force of arms"

You right Max, they learned some hard lessons, after two World Wars, almost 100,000,000 dead, and the systematic attempt to kill every Jewish person in Europe. Apart from that the Europeans have never wasted resources on militarism or conquest.

For those who fail to see the difference between the justifiable and necessary war against Ben Laden and his group of extremist ideologues, and the volitional, avoidable, unnecessary and dangerous excursion in Iraq; there is one thing that you must do before you mouth off jingoistic bull such as “we should fight them over there or we’ll have to fight them on main street USA”… You must learn and educate yourself about Iraq, its history, its numerous religious and ethnic groups, the antithesis that existed between Saddam and the Ben Ladens of the world and finally you must have a grasp that the war in Iraq is derailing our efforts to snuff-off Al Qaeda type extremists by transforming them into a palatable ideology to moderate Arabs.

Signed
A U.S. Army Officer who served in Iraq.

JRLR: The point is that how can someone who has never seen any type of republican government or experieced democracy comment on the state of American democracy, when we don't even know whether or not she has ever even been to America. It's like someone who has never played or watched baseball criticizing a baseball player's mechanics. They have a perfectly good right to comment, but excuse me if as the player I would rather hear it from someone with more experience in baseball. I've been to Qatar during a 4 day pass in 2005. You know what you won't find on Al Jazeera? News stories criticizing the Qatari regime. I did love the country though and the people were very friendly. If you read more than the WaPo discussion pages and Amar's blog, you'd know this sort of thing. Your missing my point besides, I agree that America is an Empire, in fact pointed out that we have been the most successful example of expanding and assimalating, killing, marginalizing a native population. Our very success has been built on the conquest of a vast continental territory. What I was contesting was the idea that we are similar to the Roman Empire and I think rightly pointed out that our experience is more akin to that of the British. So your "ad hominem" attempt to merely discredit my argument while offering none of you own is a little pathetic, especially when you pick out one part of my post rather than look at as a whole. You seem rather arrogant yourself my friend.

I see no rationale for all the bombing and killing going on in the name of Freedom and Justice. It is hatred, racism, and downright stupidity by Mickey Mouse politicians attempting to cater to the lowest denominator in modern-day cavemen. It does not pay to argue with Americans either. Most cannot understand what all the fuss is about anyway. They will just have to wait until their time comes, the time when a superior technology encroaches on their homeland, and establishes a new system of law and order in which they are the weak. Then they will know.

I am a middle aged man, and I hope when I am an old man America is producing enough energy from
1. nuclear: coal to oil
2. nuclear: water to hydrogen
3. nuclear electricity and longer term
4. solar electricity
5. wind electricity

that we can let the Chinese worry about buying oil in the Middle East.

Much truth lies in your argument and many of the Americans that write above engage in the very assumptions of which you wrote. Although I believe the power America holds to be great and relatively unchecked, our overstepping is not out of the evil intentions of Americans, but due to those interests, such as economic, that many never even consider. For example, how America literally outsourced the problem of low wages and business-based oppression to the rest of the world, protecting ourselves from such. However, this is both ignored and unknown to most and the only way to inform is education and personalization.

I agree with the sentiments that being a part of the solution is more important than complaining, especially considering that certain countries do benefit from America in many ways, but as it has already been established, Americans don't know about this. So people, quit getting mad about the complaints, find out why all of a sudden they've increased in size, measure, and intensity.

Often, the bully creates his owns enemies. It is certainly true that you choose your joys and sorrows long before you experience them. There is evil in the world, but most Americans are not aware of the indirect harm their actions can create, and I am certainly not one without blame. Thank you for your critique.

"They're smart and they've learned not to waste their resources on militarism and empires abroad or trying to dominate the globe by force of arms.

That is true power. Latent and unobtrusive. Maybe the US can learn a thing or two from Europeans after all and they can start by learning how to make a decent car that Americans actually want to buy!"

They don't spend money on militaries because they're sitting behind the American military deployed, where we've been since the 1940's, playing babysitter to a bunch of atrophied imperialists that couldn't work well and play nicely with others until another monster menace, the Soviets, finally quelled them into behaving following the rise of the Iron Curtain.

Don't give us that pansy assed tripe of Euroculture superiority. We've seen Eurovision, we're not fooled.

I've never seen a bigger stream of whining losers. America is a ruthless empire? What a joke. This country is so PC that our political leaders can't even say that we're at war with Muslim extremists. We strip search more old ladies at airports than 20-yr olds called Mohammed. I wish this country would act like an empire and start to impose our will on these ruthless, murderous regimes across planet. If we acted like an empire maybe we could prevent Africans from killing Africans by the millions or Arabs blowing up Arabs at markets or Pakistanis from killing each other at their houses of worship. Large parts of this planet are a cesspool because of the brutality of their own citizens not because of an imperlisitic America. There's a reason why the citizens of Africa, the Middle East and Asia spend generations wollowing in misery: they spend their time reading people like Ms. Adoni and blaming their ills on the US instead of their own leaders.

I've never seen a bigger stream of whining losers. America is a ruthless empire? What a joke. This country is so PC that our political leaders can't even say that we're at war with Muslim extremists. We strip search more old ladies at airports than 20-yr olds called Mohammed. I wish this country would act like an empire and start to impose our will on these ruthless, murderous regimes across planet. If we acted like an empire maybe we could prevent Africans from killing Africans by the millions or Arabs blowing up Arabs at markets or Pakistanis from killing each other at their houses of worship. Large parts of this planet are a cesspool because of the brutality of their own citizens not because of an imperlisitic America. There's a reason why the citizens of Africa, the Middle East and Asia spend generations wollowing in misery: they spend their time reading people like Ms. Adoni and blaming their ills on the US instead of their own leaders.

In the mid-1970's, similar books and similar ideas were promoted that America was Rome, Rome declined, and, ergo, America was in a Roman decline. During times of political and military difficulties, books like these sell well just as gold-investment books sell well during periods of stock-price declines and panic.

Unlike Rome and unlike our contemporaries, America is a dynamic country. Free expression and free markets spark cultural and economic creativity. Cultural and economic creativity do not occur in lands where cartoonists are threatened for lampooning religious figures.

The author can talk about imperialism and plunder. However, I respectively believe that she is missing the point. What is happening is that the Islamic sultanates and their propaganda arms, from where she works and for whom she posts, are falling farther behind the west in terms of scientific advancement, technological change, and mutual tolerance. I am sure that the oil-rich sultanates can buy goods and can buy foreign workers to design and build things for them. However, isn't this a bit like the parable where you should teach a man how to fish rather than to feed him with fish?

What the author's article is suffering from is envy rather than expressing perspicacity.

The EU is the largest economic and industrial power in the world already. It has the largest internal trade and is the largest exporter in the world.

When Americans achieve their American dream, they all rush out to spend their money on European goods - 2000 dollar italian suits, French fashions, cosmetics, wines, German sports cars, Swiss watches, etc. etc.

But when it comes to talking about empires and power the Europeans are still thought of as individual, smaller powers like France or Britain.

They're smart and they've learned not to waste their resources on militarism and empires abroad or trying to dominate the globe by force of arms.

That is true power. Latent and unobtrusive. Maybe the US can learn a thing or two from Europeans after all and they can start by learning how to make a decent car that Americans actually want to buy!

Hey Robert in LA.

Do us all a favor and take your BS over the Iraq.. Join up, and hopefully rid the world of yourself by doing so. We dont need idiots like you here or anywhere, you are the scum of the earth.

The Roman Empire lasted much longer that 250 years, it was a slow rise and a slow decline. The American Empire will eventually decline but that is a long way off.

The Roman Empire imploded when their ecomomic pie began shrinking such that there wasn't enough to go around to the elites or the politariate. The citizens were in constant state of revolt and needed distraction.

The English Empire also ran out of resources they didn't have sufficent military to hang on to everything and lot of their decline was negotiated ie Canada, Australia, Hong Kong. Mind you the British Commonwealth is not a bad result considering how other empires declined.

The Ottoman Empire's decline was the result of a corupted bureaucracy and picking the wrong side in the 1st world war

The Carthagian empire was very influencial and powerful until it got wiped out by a new powerful Roman Empire.

The Soviet Empire was wiped ecomonically similar to the Roman Empire. The Russian Empire still exists and is starting to reassert itself.

The Chinese Empire is in most ways over 4000 years old and still strong. Mind you they have had very short periods of being dominated.

The American Empire still has the support of it's citizens, it still has untapped military power (nuclear weapons), a generally honest bureaucracy, sufficient resources to keep the elite and politatiate happy and no other empires with the might to wipe them out. No terrorist action has every destroyed an empire though it may cause a government to change

To say the American Empire is in decline or will never decline because of the current battles with Islamisists is not true. One small event (in the historical perspective) is not going to cause the fall of an Empire

It is staggering, but typical of a Post blog spot, to see such self loathing of this country. The Blame America First brigades are alive and well in the hip Starbucks world you liberals live in. Have fun talking up the evils of George Bush and "Red State" America over your cafe' mochas.

Real Americans who work for a living and who dare to wear a uniform know the truth and know the lies you peddle. You are the Terrorists Best Friends.

and i have to add...no one stays on top forever.

Pardon my omission above, which should have noted that other student of the British way of governance who wrote the Bill of Rights was George Mason.

THIS IS THE ARGUMENT ON PRAGMATIC, UNPRINCIPLED AMERICA:

"But if we read well into the dominant American discourse -- with the exception of the anti-war movement -- there is no questioning of imperial notions and goals. The talk is all about whether America can succeed or not; the main point is whether America is winning or losing. There is little discussion in the establishment about whether and why America is entitled to win and to dominate."

AND THIS IS THE TYPICAL AD HOMINEM NON-COUNTER-ARGUMENT (MEANT TO ARBITRARILY DISCREDIT AND SHUT UP THE OPPONENT) THAT ALWAYS LEAVES ME UNIMPRESSED AND UNCONVINCED:

"I do find it interesting that someone from Qatar, an absolutist monarchy (under the same Al-Thani family since the mid-1800's and whose current leader came to power in a coup against his own father in 1995) and a state that is dominated by Islamic Law is so critical of American democracy, or indeed, feels uniquely qualified to comment on democracy at all."

Cheap.

"Remember that this country produced George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln..." -- Is that so? How long ago was that? Is the above what remains of that production?

I think America is more like Britain of the 19th and 18th century mixed with a little Rome. But I still think America is nicer with its hegemony and bossiness of other countries. Britain and Rome were ruthless with their conquests that usually always used violence and high taxes to assert their control. America uses indirect means like turning other countries presidents into puppets and using financial aid to create dependence upon them. It is not a coincidence Israel, Egypt and Jordan are at the top of the aid charts. But even the most die hard American must acknowledge that America does tell countries what to do. Hence, the reason America is hated around the world by almost everybody.
BY the way, Al Jazeera, is seriously, the most free news broadcast I have ever watched. They do not hold back on anything. They are the First network in the Arab world to call for reform, human rights and for countries leaders to help the poor and quit lining their pockets. They critisize everybody. I love that. Instead of networks like Cnn and Fox news, that just spit out what they are told. If American media was anything like Al jazeera, their reporters would have found out all the lies that the Bush administration lied about to start the Iraq war. Al jazeera is the best.

The oil trade is mutually beneficial to both parties (buyers and sellers). We Americans spend billions policing the world's waterways to ensure that our interests (to the world's shipping lanes safe) are looked after. But it's silly to pretend others don't also benefit.

"It took centuries to abolish slavery, and America has only recently shed the shame -- if we are comparing with the Roman Empire timeline, this is an important element."

So we are in the business of holding people accountable for the sins of their fathers? Generations have passed since slavery, No doubt, America's history is checkered. But I immigrated to the US in 1994, am I somehow culpable? No more so than a German born after the 2nd World War.

"Modern technology, oil and advanced sciences have enabled our latest global empire to become the most powerful in history, the most devastating, the most dominating and domineering."

Most powerful in history? You overstate the case. Statistics like overall level of military spending inflate US power and influence. See Iraq, Vietnam, Philippines. You need only look at the empires of Hitler and Stalin to find higher levels of destruction, neither of which would have been defeated were it not for America. Despite our disagreements with our friends across the Atlantic, Europe would not be the place it is today were it not for, what you call, "American Empire." Japan and South Korea are two other examples.

You talk as if the Middle East were this peaceful utopia before America. All of your problems are our fault. As far as empire's go, you could do far worse. Do you want the US to withdraw from the world and adopt the isolationist position it had in the 1920's and 30's? Are you naive enough to believe that another power would not step into the vacuum left by US disengagement with the Middle East.

"But if we read well into the dominant American discourse -- with the exception of the anti-war movement -- there is no questioning of imperial notions and goals."

The marginalized anti-war movement? 70% of Americans if you read the polls.

VYUN, no, you need not go farther, just back up and check your own facts. British colonialism produced Washington and Jefferson. Lincoln was pretty much a self-made man and thus an American product. But to say we're a Republic is to confound the present instance with the eternal. Owing to the wisdom inherent in our Bill of Rights (written by another student of British common law) we are progressively more and more a liberal democracy. America willing, the U.S. will rise again.

Comparing the modern world to the ancient world is a forced comparison. Our concept of humanity has changed since then.

Not all Americans are as deluded as Robert in the first comment. But most Americans haven't come to grips with the fact that the ONLY reason our troops are in the middle east is to ensure a steady supply of oil for AMERICAN consumption. American forces aren't over there for the benefit of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc, or to promote democracy just for the sake of promoting democracy. American troops are over there to protect the interests of American oil consumers, plain and simple.

I'm American, BTW.

great article!

"While America might meddle in the affairs of other countries, it is always with a goal towards making the other countries better, not to conquer". Really John? I could go provide you with a long list of countries where the dictator was fully supported and often times guided by the U.S. How did this make those long-suffering countries better? American exceptionalism can only be believed by those who have no knowledge or understanding of history. An empire is an empire and they all eventually run out of resources. For a complete explanation of this theory, read the excellent book by Paul Kennedy "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers"

America is worse than Rome.. Roman empire fell due to its imperial military extension beyond its ability to tax and pay for (including the colonies).. Rome did not have an unfunded obligation of paying tens of millions of its senior citizens social security, and covering health care. On top of our bloated defense spending ($550 billion and rising, more that the rest of the world combined), we have trillions of dollars debt and future obligations. So the politicians and Wall Street money-changers are leading USA down the path of self-destruction on dual fronts: arrogance in a blind belief in military might and subjugating other countries to control their resources (oil, markets); and destroying the economic foundation of USA by dismantling our manufacturing base, and exporting jobs overseas so that 10% of people in USA reap 70% + benefits of outsourcing..

America has been imperializing for a very long time, but never more egregiously or on such a scale as when she invaded and destroyed an unoffending independant entity called the Confederate States.

America has been imperializing for a very long time, but never more egregiously or on such a scale as when she invaded and destroyed an unoffending independant entity called the Confederate States.

Thanks Ms. Andoni for providing and WaPo for linking on its home page this keenly relevant, succinct, and insightful essay concerned with America's dangerous undermining of its purported goal of a democratic and therefore more stable world. If only our current administration with its self-defeating chimerical goals would learn from the lessons of history instead of twisting them into excuses.

Somebody have to be the big boy and I'm glad that it's U.S of A, not them. Remember that this country produced George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln... We are not perfect but we are striving. Do I need to go farther. We are not the Imperial Rome; we are the Republic Rome. Get the history right.

We are more like the Britain of the 18th & 19th Centuries rather than Rome. I doubt that the Romans constantly wrung their hands or suffered any real moral qualms over the expansion of their empire. For the most part, it expanded to a point that they felt they could control. Had they been able to pacify the Germanic tribes or defeat the Parthians, it is reasoned to believe that they would have expanded until another outside power stopped it. In America and Britain, the continued expansion and establishment of Empire did have opponents. Though few Americans had qualms over the expansion of the US against Native Americans (wherein lies our true "Empire") there was significant political wrangling over expansion based on military victories over Mexico and Spain. The Roman populous generally supported the expansion of Roman borders, and there was little political opposition to it from within. I do find it interesting that someone from Qatar, an absolutist monarchy (under the same Al-Thani family since the mid-1800's and whose current leader came to power in a coup against his own father in 1995) and a state that is dominated by Islamic Law is so critical of American democracy, or indeed, feels uniquely qualified to comment on democracy at all.

Dear Robert,

We love you dearly but you can be such an idiot.

There are the oil sources of the Middle East, orgininally developed by Western colonial powers - Britain and France, the US coming in later. Eventually some of the princes the West selected to take over from the Ottomans decided they should control the natural resources of the region, not the foreign corporations.

Now the oil is exported to countries around the world. On one side, providers. On the other side, customers. Just whose oil lanes are they, anyway?

The contemporary Middle East would look much different without the historical and continuing meddling of the West. THEIR oligarchies we helped create. THEIR oil lanes we depend on. THEIR terrorists we helped to train and fund in Afghanistan. THEIR attempts at democracy we blocked by overthrowing governments.

Robert, I know it is fun to throw tantrums, but try not to make such a fool of yourself. Take a deep breath, count to ten.

The dynamic law of number and its efficiencies fails to apply to empires! As Empires grow and become more powerful they inevitably become the target of the jealous, the weak, the inefficient, the poor. These group suddenly find themselves with the natural foes of larger dominant states the evil. On the other hand history has shown that the larger the terrotorial dominance of an Empire becomes the less effective is its ability to rule its vast lands and contol to harness the benefits of its resources, examples of Rome, Ottomans, English....all fell relative to this type of
It is very unique that this dynamic in its classical form does not apply to the U.S. A nation that isnt or was not focused on territorial expansion but rather economic development to the its maximum efficiency through product innovation and advanced structural capital market design. However a single religious minority in this great country has altered its foreign policy direction in an unconditional manner to provide constant unquestioned support for the creation, support and protection militarily, politically and economically of a very controversial state that brings it into the crosshairs of radicalism. This a direction this nation has been put into through manipulation internally. The invasion of Iraq is the most recent example of this manipulation sold to the Americans as preemptive action against terrorism but now it is clearly presenting it objective of a buffer for this nation and Iran....interesting ehhh....The Rise and Fall of Empires.

The dynamic law of number and its efficiencies fails to apply to empires! As Empires grow and become more powerful they inevitably become the target of the jealous, the weak, the inefficient, the poor. These group suddenly find themselves with the natural foes of larger dominant states the evil. On the other hand history has shown that the larger the terrotorial dominance of an Empire becomes the less effective is its ability to rule its vast lands and contol to harness the benefits of its resources, examples of Rome, Ottomans, English....all fell relative to this type of
It is very unique that this dynamic in its classical form does not apply to the U.S. A nation that isnt or was not focused on territorial expansion but rather economic development to the its maximum efficiency through product innovation and advanced structural capital market design. However a single religious minority in this great country has altered its foreign policy direction in an unconditional manner to provide constant unquestioned support for the creation, support and protection militarily, politically and economically of a very controversial state that brings it into the crosshairs of radicalism. This a direction this nation has been put into through manipulation internally. The invasion of Iraq is the most recent example of this manipulation sold to the Americans as preemptive action against terrorism but now it is clearly presenting it objective of a buffer for this nation and Iran....interesting ehhh....The Rise and Fall of Empires.

As usual in these sorts of arguments, each side refuses to see its own faults. The anti-america crowd just bashes america, finding all its faults, and not noticing any other problem. The Iranian government has been doing a heck of a job managing their economy and pursuing nuclear weapons at the expense of the average citizen, just as the Taliban regime was great and it was the Great Satan that screwed up that country. On the other hand, the pro-America crowd just blasts people from different countries with sweeping stereotypes. Qatar and Iraq, for example, are not the same place, and the people who live across the middle east are not all exactly the same (just as we americans are not all the same; one of the posters attacks a classic target of the anti-america crowd, Isreal, as "our" friend/ally. yes, they are our ally, but that does not mean that every american supports exactly what theyre doing, but at the same time, one must recognize that the palestinians must share some blame as well. this is exactly what keeps a solution from ever happening, name pointing). it's too easy to sweep away the author of this book's claims about the moral undertone of american policy. im the first to admit that weve done (and continue to do) some very sleazy things in terms of other countries, but we also do good things. our involvement in the balkans in the 90s, the marshall plan to europe post WWII, massive aid to africa, etc. its easy to blast america because were the most powerful, but what other governments don't have sleazy elements. china supports the regime allowing genocide in sudan, russia props up a brutal dictatorship in belarus, syria/iran try to foment violence in lebanon, hugo chavez continues to chip away at liberty and freedom in venezuela. heres a crucial difference between us and rome: non-romans in the empire lived a wretched existence, but in america (key word: in) people from all over the world are accepted and assimilated into our society, and theyre eager to come here.

Demtri's post was better than the article.

The real conquest of the world will be by economic conquest, not by military power, and not by nation-sates either. It will be a have's vs. have not's situation in the end, with the have's dominating.

Robert of Los Angeles: Actually you misunderstand the opposition to the Iraq war. To be sure it has been strengthened by the incompetence in waging it, but it is rooted in opposition to the need for the war. In other words, if we had been attacked by Iraq, there would be no question about going to war. But since we were not attacked by Iraq, the question arises as to why anyone must die or be maimed? There is no valid answer.

Perhaps you can understand a different approach: The empires that were most aggressive in asserting their military prowess did not last too long. Perhaps we should use the Byzantine as an example: it lasted for about 1000 years, by paying off potential enemies, and fighting only when absolutely necessary. Not big on the testosterone, to be sure, but it lasted 4-5 times longer than the others.